Peace Protestors, Grow The Fuck Up!

[gobear]

Even though the IMF and World Bank prudently canceled their meetings in DC this month, the fuckhead anarchists and hippies paraded anyway, this time protesting in an anti-capitalist, anti-racism, anti-technology march.

Thousands of Americans have been murdered, and you want to give the architect of the terrorist acts a flower and a hug? Let him get off scot-free? Maybe if you sing Kum Ba Ya loud enough and wave your giant puppets, bin Laden will apologize! :rolleyes: Frankly, I suspect a lot of the protesters today would like to give bin Laden a medal for killing so many capitalists.

Nobody wants to kill innocent Afghans, but if people are hurt, why don't you use your head and blame the Taliban for sheltering this monster? If innocents are killed, the Taliban and bin Laden are to blame.

In addition,
1) Show your faces. Wearing black masks and bandannas makes you look dangerous and untrustworthy. If your cause is just, why do you hide?

2) Drop the fuckin' puppets and drums. You look like a bunch of kids on break, instead of serious activists. If you are so intent on avoiding war, then why don't you stay home and build up grass roots support for your cause instead of coming to DC and being a royal pain in the ass?

3) Anticapitalism is an asinine idea. If you are so intent on achieving global justice, why don't you lobby for democracy and opportunity in the Middle East? Capitalism is the only way for other nations to improve their economies. Socialism doesn't work.

[apotheosis]

I'd like to add my wholehearted agreement in here before Guin & Co. show up to express their inevitable huffy outrage at your shameless warmongering. :D

[Michael Ellis]

*applause*


Well said, gobear.

[Sterra]

Nobody wants to kill innocent Afghans, but if people are hurt, why don't you use your head and blame the Taliban for sheltering this monster? If innocents are killed, the Taliban and bin Laden are to blame.
Why is it that people keep on wanting to put the responsibilities of America's actions on the Taliban? If innocents are killed then the people doing or supporting the action that got the innocents to be killed are to blame.

We don't blame ourselves for the terrorist actions of Osama Bin Laden, so why would we blame the Taliban for the actions we are going to take against them?

[jabe]

Striving for peace is a good cause. Protesting for peace is a good cause. It might not get anything done, but neither does complaining about peace protesters.

I blame the Taliban for sheltering Bin Laden, and I blame Bin Laden for killing inncoent people. He should pay for what he did.

If waving puppets and marching in anti-war protests makes these people feel better, I say let them do it. When they start hurting people and destroying things it goes too far. But as long as it stays peaceful, I think it is the best examples of our 'American Freedoms' that we are so eager to protect.


peace,
JB

[Michael Ellis]

Reminds me of an old Monty Python line:

"I'd like to start a war for peace."

[Bluepony]

Same ol' tired fuckin' act that I played at in college. Cool then, pathetic now. Gobear, please pass me that copy of the Wall Street Journal after you're through with it, o.k.?

[dropzone]

Damn straight, jabe.

I think I liked goboy better than this gobear personna. He's turning into as big an unthinking, knee-jerking, one-note, right-wing blowhard as Milo.

[gobear]

We don't blame ourselves for the terrorist actions of Osama Bin Laden, so why would we blame the Taliban for the actions we are going to take against them?

In the same way we blame any murderers for the actions we take against them. The Taliban have supported bin Laden, they are sheltering him, and they have refused to hand him over to be tried for his crimes. Their hands are stained not only with the blood of 6,000 Americans, but also with the women they have starved, the gays and lesbians they have crushed under walls, and the dissidents they have shot.

[Milossarian]

Someone of dropzone's intellect and ilk doesn't like me.

Somehow, I think I'll still be able to sleep tonight.

[december]

Originally posted by Sterra
We don't blame ourselves for the terrorist actions of Osama Bin Laden, so why would we blame the Taliban for the actions we are going to take against them? By Sterra's strange logic, there's as much blame for Allies who killed Nazis as for Nazis, who committed genocide. :rolleyes:

[gobear]

I think I liked goboy better than this gobear personna. He's turning into as big an unthinking, knee-jerking, one-note, right-wing blowhard as Milo

Um, Dropzone, I voted for Gore, I have NEVER voted for a Republican in my life, and I'm gay. It's kinda difficult for me to be an unthinking, knee-jerking, right-wing person. A blowhard, well, people have to judge for themselves.

I am, however, someone who thinks that appeasing tyrants is stupid, weak, and untimately suicidal. If you want peace, that means that you want bin Laden to go free, because he will never be caught without violence. I don't want the people of Afghanistan to suffer; right now, they are being held hostage by the Taliban. All the Taliban have to do to avoid a military conflict is to hand over bin Laden. What part of that do you have a problem with?

[dropzone]

Originally posted by Milossarian
Somehow, I think I'll still be able to sleep tonight. As the possibility that you could be wrong on any issue, or that some other view might possibly have some merit, cannot fit in that brain of yours I'm not surprised. Sleep tight.

[King Rat]

I'm gonna reprint my post from another thread (the "pseudo hippies" thread) here because it was buried under some unrelated trolling:

The "psuedo hippies" (for this thread, substitute "peace protesters") as you call them have set themselves up in Union Square here in NYC not far from me. Union Square became a beautiful memorial with pictures and candles and signs. The "pseudo hippies" then set up camp in the south part and have defaced George Washington's statute with a huge peace symbol on the horse's hindquarter (that's not all). There are "March on Washington--Peace Now" posters. Even my rabidly Nixon-hating mother was offended. The bodies of the dead haven't even been recovered yet and you want to sue for peace? I just don't get it. It seems to me that being for "peace" is like being against wife-beating. Of course peace is preferable to war. Of course love is better than hate. Is this in doubt? But the "pseudo-hippies" ("peace protesters") can't abide force of any kind. Oh, if you ask them "Well, are we supposed to turn the other cheek?" they may reply "No, that the people responsible should be punished." But what does that mean to them? Thier slogans and rhetoric suggest capitulation, at least to my ears. Perhaps I just don't understand the philosophy of Pacifism.

P.S. They can't abide force of any kind unless its against an animal research facility or other politically "correct" target.

In the late sixties when I was 9 or 10, my sister and I would joke that the hippies' motto was:

PEACE OR I'LL KILL YOU!

P.P.S. please note that I am not critizing people who protested against the Vietnam War.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by gobear
It's kinda difficult for me to be an unthinking, knee-jerking, right-wing person. A blowhard, well, people have to judge for themselves.You're heading there. Next thing you know you'll be married to a woman and driving the kids to soccer in your minivan. If you are going to start abusing people for their strongly-held personal beliefs you might as well get used to getting it back.

[gobear]

You're heading there. Next thing you know you'll be married to a woman and driving the kids to soccer in your minivan. If you are going to start abusing people for their strongly-held personal beliefs you might as well get used to getting it back

Oh, abuse me all you like. Swear at me, make comments about my momma, call me a Nazi. I can take it. But when you call me right-wing, it tells me that you've paid very little attention to my posts.

I think that pacifism, in general terms, is a wonderful thing. I think that pacifism as a response to the WTC/Pentagon/PA tragedies is stupid, shortsighted appeasement of murderers.

[MsWhatsit]

Regarding the Taliban and whether they're "guilty" or not: I personally would have supported a war against the Taliban before Sept. 11, on the grounds that their crimes against their own people, and hell, their crimes against humanity, are deserving of strong retribution.

[apotheosis]

Originally posted by dropzone
[QUOTE]You're heading there. Next thing you know you'll be married to a woman and driving the kids to soccer in your minivan.
HA! YEAH, Punk! Just like all those soccer moms that kept...... Clinton...... in......office......

nevermind. (slinks away)

[jabe]

shit, that was funny





peace,
JB

[Sterra]

Originally posted by december
Originally posted by Sterra
We don't blame ourselves for the terrorist actions of Osama Bin Laden, so why would we blame the Taliban for the actions we are going to take against them? By Sterra's strange logic, there's as much blame for Allies who killed Nazis as for Nazis, who committed genocide. :rolleyes:
Or maybe just maybe people are responsible for their actions. The allies who killed the Nazies are responsible for killing the Nazies. The Nazies who commited genocide are responsible for committing genocide. Personally I thought that a person doing something then yelling "he made me do it!" was two year old logic.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by gobear
But when you call me right-wing, it tells me that you've paid very little attention to my posts.You've been heading there with the tone of your posts since 9/11. You've been dancing pretty close to the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" attitude. In other words, you've been more intolerant and less patient and sensible than Dubya himself! You've sounded more like Rush Limbaugh than yourself.

Yes, I know you have friends in the Pentagon. Yes, you live close to it and the trauma of the attacks struck mighty close to you. But you have a history supporting human rights, one of which is to be stupid and silly and have everybody else roll their eyes at you. Do you march in Gay Pride parades? Are you in regular clothes, marching with a grassroots organization that works for social justice, or are you in drag blowing kisses? Trust me, the rest of us have a good chuckle at the latter's expense, but we still like them and won't stand in their way if that's how they wish to make their points.

No, these protestors don't want to "give bin Laden a medal for killing so many capitalists." Many have strong personal and religious beliefs against war. Yeah, they're naive. Yeah, they're annoying. Yeah, the masks make them look really stupid and pretentious. But they aren't there to give bin Laden "a flower and a hug." Give them a break, laugh behind their backs, and go back to your life. They are part of what makes America so great.

[Bluesman]

Dropzone, are you perhaps off-topic here?

Yeah, you are. Contribute to the post, or get outta here.

The peace protesters are wrong. Their cause is immoral. Not "peace", which is what they think they are advocating, but the craven cowardice that would see nothing effective done to prevent further acts.

There are very few things in this world that are worse than war, but appeasing killers is about ten of 'em. As the protesters acquiesce to mass murder and give comfort to our enemies, they don't have a principled leg to stand on, and they should be seen in that light: morally bankrupt ethical cripples.

[apotheosis]

Originally posted by dropzone
Give them a break, laugh behind their backs, and go back to your life. They are part of what makes America so great.
Protesting is OK, but protesting the protests isn't OK?

[Bluesman]

Didn't see your last post, Dropzone. At least THAT one was mostly about the right topic. Mostly.

[elucidator]

Ah, its like deja vu all over again. When is Bob Hope gonna show up and tell "take a bath" jokes? Those always cracked me up. Should be seeing those "Love it or Leave it" bumper stickers any day now. Anybody who criticizes our wise and firm leaders obviously isn't supporting our boys in Kabul. "Track of the American Chicken". "You know, they spit on veterans at the airport!"

Oh, God, not again. Please. Not again.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by Bluesman
The peace protesters are wrong. Their cause is immoral. Not "peace", which is what they think they are advocating, but the craven cowardice that would see nothing effective done to prevent further acts.Where do you find that in what they are doing? You seem to be having loads of fun projecting your beliefs about them onto them.

What the fuck is wrong with working for peace? Where does it say, other than in some of the bilge being posted here, that the only way to stop terrorism is with total war? Sorry if I'm a craven coward to you, asswipe, but my religious training DEMANDS that I exhaust all other avenues before going to war.

[MysterEcks]

dropzone
If you are going to start abusing people for their strongly-held personal beliefs you might as well get used to getting it back.
You mean kind of like what you're doing? Mr. Pot, you are accusing other people of being cooking appliances.

gobear said:
I think that pacifism as a response to the WTC/Pentagon/PA tragedies is stupid, shortsighted appeasement of murderers.
What was it Neville Chamberlain said he had achieved by appeasing Hitler at Munich in 1938--"Peace in our time," wasn't it? Those who refuse to learn from the past are willfully stupid. They have a right to be willfully stupid...but that doesn't change the willful stupidity of it.

[MEBuckner]

But you have a history supporting human rights, one of which is to be stupid and silly and have everybody else roll their eyes at you.
Yeah, gobear! You take back that part where you said we should amend the Constitution to have all the peace protestors rounded up and shot right now!

[dropzone]

Originally posted by apotheosis
[QUOTE]Protesting is OK, but protesting the protests isn't OK? No, not if the intent is to stifle criticism.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by MysterEcks
You mean kind of like what you're doing? Mr. Pot, you are accusing other people of being cooking appliances.Yes. That is exactly what I said. Glad you were able to figure it out. "What goes around comes around," as the annoying phrase goes.

[Kyla]

I was thinking of starting this very same thread. Gobear, I agree with you completely. I am politically very liberal (Green Party member, raised by actual hippies - my dad was a conscientious objector from the Vietnam War after he graduated from Berkeley), and generally pacifistic, but there are some things that cannot be tolerated. These "peace" protesters make me ill, because it's not really peace they're after - they simply can't bear to agree with anything anyone in government might say. If it comes from the political mainstream, it must be wrong. I used to participate in college politics when I was at the very left-wing UC Santa Cruz, but gave up when I realized that it wasn't peace or freedom that most people were after, it was notoriety. They aren't interested in anything that can be attained in this reality, only in socialist dreamworlds. These are the people who want to free Tibet, but couldn't find Tibet on a map if their life depended on it.

SF Chronicle columnist Adair Lara wrote an excellent column on this topic recently. Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/20/DD198803.DTL)

[MysterEcks]

So then the principle here is to not act like dropzone?

[apotheosis]

Originally posted by dropzone
Originally posted by apotheosis
[QUOTE]Protesting is OK, but protesting the protests isn't OK? No, not if the intent is to stifle criticism.
What if it's merely intended to criticize the critics?

What makes their right to express their opinions more worthy than anyone else's right to express their opinions?

Is this violating some cosmic law of recursive opinionation?

I guess I missed the part where gobear suggested we pull a Kent State on 'em. Perhaps I need to go look for the demands for bloodshed lurking betwixt the lines.

[SPOOFE]

I recall a while back that, during a car chase where some policemen were chasing a suspect, an innocent bystander was injured. It raised a hubbub for a while.

But my question is... who was responsible for the injury to the innocent bystander?

[gobear]

No, not if the intent is to stifle criticism.

And how, precisely, is calling the peace protesters on their craven submission to murderers stifling criticism? If harsh words are enough to shut you up, you must really be the timid little rabbits you appear. Hell, Gandhi and Bertrand Russell spent time in jail for refusing to support the British war effort during WWI.

[dropzone]

Pssssst! Kyla! Don't tell anybody but I agree with you, for the most part. I'm just tired of the knees jerking against protestors because I'm more of your parents' generation and my knee starts jerking when I hear the gratuitous insults thrown at anybody who protests the status quo. Even right-wingers, but I'd never give them the satisfaction of telling them THAT!

[dropzone]

Originally posted by gobear
If harsh words are enough to shut you up,then you haven't been paying much attention to MY posts! ;)

[gobear]

I don't wish to stop you protesting because repression of political speech, no matter how desperately misguided, violates everything I believe in. I wish to persuade you that pacifism in this situation is wrong.

You are free to protest, but you're not free to avoid having your fragile little feelings hurt.

[MEBuckner]

I'm just tired of the knees jerking against protestors because I'm more of your parents' generation and my knee starts jerking when I hear the gratuitous insults thrown at anybody who protests the status quo.
Okay, but what if they're not gratuitous insults? What if they're carefully-thought-out, well-reasoned insults?

[dropzone]

Originally posted by gobear
You are free to protest, but you're not free to avoid having your fragile little feelings hurt. Okay. That clarifies it.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
What if they're carefully-thought-out, well-reasoned insults? Some of Gobear's comments in the OP were well reasoned. The ones suggesting the protestors want to hug and congratulate bin Laden were gratuitous projection of his own anger. They were not well reasoned.

[MEBuckner]

Well, hell, dropzone, this is the Pit. Having at least some of your OP be well-reasoned is doing pretty good, I'd say.

[dropzone]

Hell, having ANY of my comments well-reasoned would be an IMPROVEMENT! ;)

[december]

Originally posted by Sterra
Or maybe just maybe people are responsible for their actions. The Allies who killed the Nazies are responsible for killing the Nazis. The Nazis who commited genocide are responsible for committing genocide. Personally I thought that a person doing something then yelling "he made me do it!" was two year old logic. Well, yes, but the use of the same word "responsible" makes it sound like a moral equivalence, Sterra.

In my moral view, the Allies deserve credit for killing Nazis and the Nazis deserve blame for committing genocide.

Don't you agree?

[Otto]

Gee gobear, don't you think you ought to look at the context before making this kind of statement?

Or if you prefer...

gobear, you are a pathetic excuse for an American.

or...

fuck you, gobear, you horrible piece of shit.

Gee, being on this side of the thread is fun! Quick, make some more posts so I can question your patriotism!

[Myrr21]

Oh ferchrissakes.

A few of my friends went to the protest. They're not short-sighted terrorist-huggers; they're average people who think that maybe the government should see that not everybody in the US is itching for a war.

That said, they were completely duped as to the nature of the protest (by a certain anarchist who happens to be dating one of em...the whipped bastard). It was "oh, there's no anti-capitalism aspect to this" one day after defending the anti-capitalism aspect of it. Dunno how it actually turned out, but I sure wasn't as heck going to a protest organized by nutcases with a piss-poor track record on the "not getting our protesters teargassed and arrested" aspect.

[dropzone]

Damn it, Otto, aren't you paying ANY attention? I'm the un-American one here. gobear is playing Archie Bunker.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by Myrr21
I sure wasn't as heck going to a protest organized by nutcases with a piss-poor track record on the "not getting our protesters teargassed and arrested" aspect. Oh, so you're another one of those "cowards," huh? Not willing to stand up for your beliefs cuz you might get gassed? Back in my day it was a badge of HONOR to have your sinuses burnt out from tear gas. No, that was somebody else. We were just burnouts. ;)

Yeah, I joined TeenAged Republicans--during the Nixon administration--because of a girl, so I know what your friend is going through.

[Kyla]

Originally posted by dropzone
Pssssst! Kyla! Don't tell anybody but I agree with you, for the most part. I'm just tired of the knees jerking against protestors because I'm more of your parents' generation and my knee starts jerking when I hear the gratuitous insults thrown at anybody who protests the status quo. Even right-wingers, but I'd never give them the satisfaction of telling them THAT!

Well, whose knees are really jerking here? You're doing exactly what I complained about in my earlier post - protesting for the sake of protesting. I hardly think that Gobear is gratuitiously insulting anyone who protests the status quo. I mean, he's already stated in this thread that he is a gay liberal Democrat. He's gratuitously insulting morons who simply can't abide anything a governing body might do. If the US government ever decided to disassemble itself, leaving us in a state of glorious anarchy, they'd probably protest that, just because the government did it.

These kids are, for the most part, whiny, spoiled brats. On a personal aside, I spent my junior year of college studying in Jerusalem, Israel. When I came back to the US, hearing complaints about how horrible the country was made me sick. I had just returned from a nation with serious problems, and here were kids in the new cars their parents had given them, complaining about how screwed up America is. Not to say that everything is hunky-dory here, or that protestors don't have the right to say what they will, only that they should grow up and get some perspective on the world before they go out and act like complete asses.

[Captain Amazing]

I just think it was kind of ironic that some of the anti-war protestors attacked cops.

[Otto]

Yeah, these people quoted in this (excerpted) AP article (sorry, no link) sure seem like whiny spoiled brats to me...

"The nation's in grief. I'm in grief. But adding more victims to the list is not going to do anyone any good," said Gill Smith, a 63-year-old demonstrator from New Jersey.

The protesters also condemned the backlash against Arabs and Muslims and say the Bush administration has used the attacks as an excuse to curtail civil liberties.

<snip>

Some protesters were motivated by personal experiences with the attacks.

John Movious, 21, a teacher from Brooklyn, N.Y., volunteered for search and rescue work after the attack on the World Trade Center. At a peace rally a few blocks from the White House, he said he came with other New Yorkers to oppose more violence.

"We have seen enough killing and we have seen enough grief," he said. "An eye for an eye doesn't solve anything."

So were there some kids there who maybe didn't have the best idea of what's going on in the world, maybe a little naive, maybe a little idealistic? Sure. So what? I guess they didn't realize there was some quiz they were supposed to pass before they had the right to oppose war.

[Kyla]

When I used the phrase "whiny spoiled brats" I wasn't speaking specifically about these protestors, I apologize if my poor editing didn't make that clear. I was making a generalization about people I have known in the past most of whom I imagine are protesting right now. They aren't so much naive as they are completely separated from reality. These protestors have the right to do whatever the heck they like. And I have the right to disagree and roll my eyes.

[Doobieous]

I say we give these protestors a free lift to Afghanistan, and maybe drop a few off at Osama's camps. They can spread their love and peace to the Taliban and Osama all they like.

[jabe]

Does someone have to be 50+ years old, with long grey hair and a beard to rally for peace? It seems like it. All the rest of us are called 'spoiled brats' and told we have to "grow up and get some perspective of the world" before we can say anything. I forgot you have to have a fucking Phd before you are taken seriously in this world.

Well, I have one thing to say. Fuck you, I will protest for peace until I die. I am young, but I have a right to say whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want. I am not a spoiled brat. Mommy and Daddy never bought me a car, or helped me out financially for years.

And I also have a question for gobear and all the rest of you "fuck the protester" types: Since 9/11, these 'kids' have been out there actively taking part in a cause they believe in; what the fuck are you guys doing? Are you standing up for what you believe? Are you going to protests and marches for your causes? Or are you just flying your flags and throwing a little money at the Red Cross?

These kids are taking an active role for something they believe in, not just pissing and moaning on a fucking message board.


peace,
JB

[Otto]

DoobieousI say we give these protestors a free lift to Afghanistan, and maybe drop a few off at Osama's camps. They can spread their love and peace to the Taliban and Osama all they like.

Dipshit.

jabeAnd I also have a question for gobear and all the rest of you "fuck the protester" types: Since 9/11, these 'kids' have been out there actively taking part in a cause they believe in; what the fuck are you guys doing? Are you standing up for what you believe? Are you going to protests and marches for your causes? Or are you just flying your flags and throwing a little money at the Red Cross?

These kids are taking an active role for something they believe in, not just pissing and moaning on a fucking message board.

OK, I gotta call bullshit on this. Their opinions aren't less valid based on what they may or may not have done "for the cause."

[Milossarian]

Well, actually, jabe m'boy, "throwing a little money at the Red Cross" is far more useful and purposeful than what your pals are doing.

A few of my friends went to the protest. They're not short-sighted terrorist-huggers; they're average people who think that maybe the government should see that not everybody in the US is itching for a war.
The Bush administration was just itching for a war, and absolutely jumped for joy when they were given the opportunity to have one on Sept. 11. Because it's doing such good things for the U.S. economy.

(Not directing this at you or your friends, Kyla. Just the general, misguided sentiment.)

[Doobieous]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Otto

Dipshit.

Yeah, fuck you too, punk ass.

[Vic Ferrari]

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
I just think it was kind of ironic that some of the anti-war protestors attacked cops.

Here's my question: Why do anarchists protest against capitalism?

[warmgun]

Originally posted by SPOOFE
I recall a while back that, during a car chase where some policemen were chasing a suspect, an innocent bystander was injured. It raised a hubbub for a while.

But my question is... who was responsible for the injury to the innocent bystander?
First let me say I do not condone killing or war.
Some things to consider:
How many more people would that suspect killed if he had not been chased down and got away? Was he speeding or a murderer on the run? If we do nothing, the attacks will continue. Their goal, remember, is to try to goad us into war.
As bad as I feel for the people in these impoverished 3rd world countries, they have got to take some responsibility for allowing these monsters to run their country. I'm not saying it would be easy for them to take it back, or that they would not loose lives but we pulled it off against the british. Yes they are poor, but they are also apathitic (yes, I realize not all are).
If you stand for peace, then don't attack cops, do it legally, show your face and toss the effigies - in other words GROW UP!
And most importantly, don't just stand there and yell "peace", offer some realistic solutions. This make-love-not-war ethos works great...if you think like we do. Unfortunately bin Ladin does not. He is a fanatic and will not abide by your 'hug' rules. He will keep killing Americans til he's stopped.
I understand you are scared of retaliation, everybody is. But doing nothing will NOT make the problem go away. Or the killing stop.
I ask you pointedly, dropzone, what is your solution?

[warmgun]

Sorry to the Brits. I obviously meant to captalize "British".

[Myrr21]

A few of my friends went to the protest. They're not short-sighted terrorist-huggers; they're average people who think that maybe the government should see that not everybody in the US is itching for a war.
The Bush administration was just itching for a war, and absolutely jumped for joy when they were given the opportunity to have one on Sept. 11. Because it's doing such good things for the U.S. economy.

(Not directing this at you or your friends, Kyla. Just the general, misguided sentiment.)
Err...I'm pretty sure I posted that; not Kyla. Maybe my memory is slipping...

Honestly, the protest is a real mix of people, and there are plenty of rational protestors there with well-thought-out, valid reasons for not wanting a war. And there are idiots who believe GWB smiled when he got the news. I know some of them. There's a reason the former I count among friends, the latter not.

It just pisses me off to see the whole group lumped together, and then be told that I should have known all along it was only the half of them that were "really being discussed."

[deepbluesea]

Originally posted by jabe
Does someone have to be 50+ years old, with long grey hair and a beard to rally for peace? It seems like it. All the rest of us are called 'spoiled brats' and told we have to "grow up and get some perspective of the world" before we can say anything. I forgot you have to have a fucking Phd before you are taken seriously in this world.No, of course you don't have to be aged and grizzled and wise to be taken seriously. That's not what I'm saying when I say I hope most of these protestors grow up. (And I have indeed said it, although not, up to now, here.)

When I read about these protestors, I think about myself at age 15. Back then, I might've done what these assorted individuals are doing. That's because at that age I filtered every major event in the world through a special youngdeepbluesea film - same event, but now with added deepbluesea! I wanted to be personally involved. I wanted to be important. I wanted to be the center of attention. I also wanted to be a part of something big and important.

I think a lot of people go through that stage. And then some people outgrow it. They learn that when we don't agree with the actions of the government, there are ways to make those opinions known - ways that are taken seriously, ways that can make a difference. Sometimes, those ways include marching in protest. But it's rare. It's even rarer that those ways include marching in protest while wearing silly outfits and carrying puppets. That has a tendency to make not only the protestors but also the point look ridiculous - which is precisely the opposite of what the peace marchers should want to accomplish.

Although I have not interviewed in depth any protest marchers, my suspicion upon reading about their activities is that they haven't thought this through. They don't seem to understand what they're marching for - saying "there's been enough suffering" is sweet and all, but precisely what steps are they hoping our government will take to avoid further suffering? Do they want us to cover our eyes and pretend nothing happened? History has shown that to be a less than successful means of averting future suffering. And even if the protestors do have some detailed plan that will avoid any future suffering on the part of any person or group of people, they don't seem to understand that this is not the best way to communicate that knowledge. The things they're doing aren't communicating anything but "Hey! Look at us!"

I'm sorry about that, too, because they may have a valid point, but we'll never know it. Not until they learn to place the focus on the message rather than themselves.

I would not, however, ever infringe any person's right to protest in a peaceful manner. For anything. It's one of the charming things about this country, that we let people do things we think are silly, that we let people believe things we don't believe. We let them hold and express their opinions, no matter what - even, jabe, if we think they haven't accomplished much or done much for this world. Doesn't in any way diminish their right to hold opinions, nor does it any way render their opinions less valid - only the content of the opinion itself can do that.

Of course, I also don't agree with you when you say that people who give blood or money to the Red Cross have done or accomplished much less than people who are protesting. The protestors are expressing their opinions just like we do, on the SDMB, in RL, wherever - in what way are they better than those of us who merely argue, assuming that there are any here who have done only that? There's no added nobility in standing and shouting as compared to sitting and typing.

[Critical1]

jabe you go right ahead and "protest for peace" all you want. just keep in mind that many are going to look at you and wonder how the fuck such a dipshit ever learned how to post on a message board.

Bin laden and his pals dont care about peace, love, or happiness. they dont give a shit that you have the right to protest for peace. they will be just as happy to kill you as any and every other american in the country. Why? because they are religeous fanatics. killing agents of satan is a good thing to them. It's irrelevant that they are almost completely out of touch with reality. It doesnt matter that a Very large part of the combined wrath of the civilised world is about to decend on them.

the reason I think your an ass (or anyone supporting nonviolence in the face of this) is because your to fucking caught up in your righteousness to see that its a basic issue of survival. you kill those who try and kill you, you have to or they will eventually win. what will you say when these already dangerous people have nukes in 10 or 15 years? when they manage to perfect a way to spread anthrax in a cities (read many cities) water supplies? will you still be shouting for peace like some pathetic lunatic? or will you look to the future, not even the distant future and see that killing these people now, RIGHT NOW will save many lives and alot of suffering for the next generation.


of course if the peace freaks prevail now then the resulting war could end up curbing global population to the point where we dont have to worry about gross over population for a few more decades. so maybe it is a good thing to vote pacifist on the issue




(note i have a decent buzz and know better to post after a few drinks, forgive me if I'm a rambling idiot right now)

[Fenris]

Originally posted by dropzone
Originally posted by MEBuckner
What if they're carefully-thought-out, well-reasoned insults? Some of Gobear's comments in the OP were well reasoned. The ones suggesting the protestors want to hug and congratulate bin Laden were gratuitous projection of his own anger. They were not well reasoned.

Sorry, you're just plain wrong.

He overstated the case, granted, but so did you. We had a local radio guy interview some of the "It's Saturday, I'm bored. Hey a protest sounds like fun!" crowd after the protest.

The broadcast was live, so he wasn't cutting and clipping comments, although he might have been targeting the obvious nuts. Most of the comments were at least borderline rational, even if I disagreed with them, but at least some of the protesters point blank stated "America deserved this" or "America brought this on itself". One notable asshole said (very close quote) "Any attack on terrorism of Capitalism is to be applauded. I support bin Laden's destruction of the WTC." When asked what he'd say to the widows/widowers and orphans, he said "The dead were engaged in terrorism and got what they deserved". FWIW, the guy right after the nut immediatly distanced himself from those statements.

So, yeah. I'm not claiming that these fuckwits were represented the bulk of the protesters, but there were at least some protesters who wanted to hug bin Laden. And the fact that you won't admit it is a gratuitious projection of your own denial. (psychobabble is fun!)

Fenris

[gobear]

Fenris sez

He overstated the case, granted, but so did you.


Umm, this is the Pit, aren't I allowed to rant here? I thought I did a good job of remaining coherent, what with the blinding rage and all.

Dropzone sez

I'm the un-American one here. gobear is playing Archie Bunker

I don't think you're un-American, man. I think you're deeply mistaken, but a good guy anyway.

Otto, on the other hand, is a motherless shit-for-brains pussy who wishes to give aid and comfort to the murderers of 6,000 Americans.

I have repeatedly said that protests is a proper expression of the disapproval of the citizen for governmental actions. I have repeatedly cited Thoreau's refusal to pay his poll tax to protest the Mexican War; Gandhi's non-violent resistance to British rule; Martin Luther King, Jr.'s marches to end segregation.

In this instance, however, the protesters are dead wrong. The US was not the aggressor, it was the victim. Osama bin Laden is not a freedom fighter; he is a tyrant manque who is against liberalism and modernity in all its forms and who hates and despises the freedoms the naive kids marching in DC take for granted.

To support peace is to knuckle under to a monster.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by warmgun
I understand you are scared of retaliation, everybody is. But doing nothing will NOT make the problem go away. Or the killing stop. I ask you pointedly, dropzone, what is your solution? Actually, I long ago stopped fearing much of anything except heights and that's something I can get used to when I have to. I even believe in a certain amount of retaliation and have watched with interest and admiration (and stated so here) the delicate way Dubya is handling a delicate situation--nobody who didn't hate us before 9/11 seems to have started hating us thanks to actions we have or haven't taken. Things are proceeding nicely and with all due and no undue deliberation. And I actually, and have stated as much in this thread, believe that some of the protestors are silly and misguided and worthy objects of ridicule.

I am just tired of ALL people who oppose a war being lumped into the "whiny brat, too scared to get himself killed for Capitalism" camp. Some of the comments directed at the protestors as a group are simply beyond the pale. By making such comments one places oneself with some of the less thinking, more reactionary posters. We are better than that. We cannot allow the events of 9/11 to turn us into angry children, lassing out at anybody we disagree wit, although I am guilty of that myself. (It's not "Do as I say, not as I do." It's more like "Your reach should exceed your grasp.") Now, more than we have in two generations, we need cool heads.

September 11 was a pivotal day in world history. It was a slap in humanity's face that could send us down one of two paths. One is a continuation of the cycle of strike and counterstrike and we do not grow from the experience. The second uses the nearly universal condemnation of the attacks to bring about genuine and positive change. With the first the victims just stay victims. With the second their deaths could have some meaning.

I heard a woman the other day with many contacts inside Afghanistan. Her people tell her that Taliban soldiers are deserting their posts. Thoughtful former Taliban and Northern Alliance* people are asking the UN to take over the country and that now is the time because the country is in such an uproar. By working with the UN instead of working outside of it we could make those people's lives better. Happy, healthy, and prosperous people do not become terrorists.

So, in a nutshell, my solution is to support what the US government is doing, expand it in concert with the UN, especially with other Mid East governments so the "It's a War Against Islam!" nuts can't get a foothold, and work for peace. The humanitarian aid being sent for the refugees is a start and should be expanded. We "peaceniks" must realize that Capitalism is not the enemy. Capitalism didn't create hunger and despair in Afghanistan, but it can help end it.


* - And we REALLY don't want to put the Northern Alliance back in power. They were the guys the Taliban threw out but were no big improvement.

[gobear]

So, in a nutshell, my solution is to support what the US government is doing, expand it in concert with the UN, especially with other Mid East governments so the "It's a War Against Islam!" nuts can't get a foothold, and work for peace. The humanitarian aid being sent for the refugees is a start and should be expanded.

That I can support wholeheartedly

AFTER

Bin Laden has been caught and forced to choke to death on his own shit.

[dropzone]

Well, I just heard an Unconfirmed Report that the Taliban has him in custody. That would be a start. Hell, admitting they knew where he was would be a start.

[Una Persson]

What is the goal of the peace protesters, really? What is their endgame? What is their real strategy to seek retaliation for the attacks on us, the 6000+ slaughtered?

I haven't heard a good one yet. Oh, I've heard some, just not any that seem good to me. They range from "We should impose economic sanctions on Afghanistan" (say what? Afghanistan has an economy of note?) and "We should get the UN to put pressure on them." (yeah...that works). A distasteful scene in my mind was a 30-something woman who said "I don't know, I don't have any answers. I just know Bush needs to be stopped." All hail the voice of reason, given her 10-second sound bite on international television.

So the protesters are against "war". Is that really all? Especially when the prospect of an actual "war" seems less and less likely each day? The interviews of them I see on CNN and my local TV don't say just that. Many interviewed say they are "against violence of any sort", and "we can't respond with an eye for an eye" (why?), etc. I haven't really heard what I consider to be any real good alternative to the use of force in some fashion.

What the Muslims of Afghanistan do to women, lesbians, gays, Hindus, etc. is a crime against humanity, IMO. Anything other than force will allow them to continue to treat women as subhumans, to perform futher "cleansing" of gays and lesbians, and to spread their message of hate and death throughout the World. This is a country that, IMO, has forfeited its right to exist and its sovreignity. It needs a clean sweep of its govenerment, in cooperation with the other Muslim States which are true Muslim States.

Violence doesn't have to be the answer, however. Present me with alternatives that are workable.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by Anthracite
Violence doesn't have to be the answer, however. Present me with alternatives that are workable. I thought I did, although the "UN takes over Afghanistan" part could get messy, but that's to be expected.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by gobear
Fenris sez

He overstated the case, granted, but so did you.


Umm, this is the Pit, aren't I allowed to rant here? I thought I did a good job of remaining coherent, what with the blinding rage and all.


You did an excellent job, m'friend. 'twas a work of art, a thing of beauty. But since drop is, in part complaining that you were inaccurate, I thought I'd point out a similar flaw in drop's statements.

Fenris

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by dropzone
Originally posted by Anthracite
Violence doesn't have to be the answer, however. Present me with alternatives that are workable. I thought I did, although the "UN takes over Afghanistan" part could get messy, but that's to be expected.

We simulposted (or were simultyping), so I didn't see your response.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Anthracite

What the Muslims of Afghanistan do to women, lesbians, gays, Hindus, etc. is a crime against humanity, IMO. Anything other than force will allow them to continue to treat women as subhumans, to perform futher "cleansing" of gays and lesbians, and to spread their message of hate and death throughout the World. This is a country that, IMO, has forfeited its right to exist and its sovreignity. It needs a clean sweep of its govenerment, in cooperation with the other Muslim States which are true Muslim States.


I favor the use of some kind of military force to respond to the attacks of September 11. I'm also disgusted by the way that the Taliban treats women and other groups. I think it's a pretty slippery slope though, to suggest that we "use force" against the Taliban because of their treatment of their citizens.

What's next? China..? India, because of their caste system? Other Muslim states with active Shiite Muslim regimes that also treat women poorly?...Should we have done a "clean sweep" in Rwanda because of the genocidal atrocities committed there? Kosovo?

Responding to an organized attack against ones' country is a far cry from acting like the worlds' police.

[Otto]

gobearOtto, on the other hand, is a motherless shit-for-brains pussy who wishes to give aid and comfort to the murderers of 6,000 Americans.

You're a lying hypocritical fuckwad who isn't worthy of licking the dirt-encrusted gum off the bottom of my shoe, as much as you'd love the job. What's the matter, can't make your asinine point without lying through your cum-rotted teeth? What a loser. Likes the idea of killing and thinks that makes him a man.

[MEBuckner]

They range from "We should impose economic sanctions on Afghanistan" (say what? Afghanistan has an economy of note?)
You know, I don't really understand that one. That's what people always say before a war--"Oh, we should give economic sanctions a chance to work". But what U.S. policy towards Iraq is now decried by these same people as cruel and inhuman? Economic sanctions, of course. And, actually, they have a point--with modern technology, we can actually blow up specific buildings, but no one has yet developed a cruise missile that can selectively impose "economic sanctions"--i.e., cut people of from the flow of basic goods and services--on Saddam Hussein or Mullah Muhammed Omar and Osama bin Laden and not also impose "economic sanctions" on all the innocent men, women, and children who happen to share a country with whoever it is we're targeting. Economic sanctions may not be violent in the blow things to smithereens sense, but they do cause suffering, and they're a very blunt instrument with lots of "collateral damage".

[rsa]

I just hope that the protesters take the time to watch "Beneath the Veil" today on CNN (4pm & 11pm ET). I have just seen excerpts so far, but I plan to watch it today. I think the peace protesters may find a more worthy cause.

[Jack Batty]

Holy, shit is this getting ugly. Whatever happened to United We Stand and all that hoo-ha?
American peace protesters are still American, aren't they. I would venture to say there isn't a single one who wishes to give aid to "the enemy", they simply consider peace a viable option, and violence to be an unacceptable solution.
They are speaking their minds in a most American way. I salute them.
And you know what, I salute anybody who protests anything in this country -- no matter if I agree with them or not -- because that is a walking, breathing, sign-carrying exhibition of what makes this country great. I don't want that to change.



From our Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Bolding and italicizing mine (obviously).

I put to you that those who would express a desire to forcibly make protester shut up and agree with them are the most un-American among us.

[gobear]

You're a lying hypocritical fuckwad who isn't worthy of licking the dirt-encrusted gum off the bottom of my shoe, as much as you'd love the job. What's the matter, can't make your asinine point without lying through your cum-rotted teeth? What a loser. Likes the idea of killing and thinks that makes him a man.

Otto, you lice-ridden spawn of a syphilitic jackal, why don't you use that shriveled piece of moldy fecal matter you call a brain?

Lying? Hypocritical? Back it up, you pathetic faggot! Where have I lied, you sad little troll? I have already said that I don't want innocent people killed, but you're just too fucking' stupid to get that.

And yes, I am a man, more than can be said for a weak, little whiner like you.

[MEBuckner]

I put to you that those who would express a desire to forcibly make protester shut up and agree with them are the most un-American among us.
Yeah, but I don't think most (if any) of the people in this thread have been expressing that desire. Freedom of speech includes the right to criticize other people's speech.
And you know what, I salute anybody who protests anything in this country -- no matter if I agree with them or not -- because that is a walking, breathing, sign-carrying exhibition of what makes this country great.
Even Fred Phelps picketting the funeral of a murdered gay person?

[gobear]

I put to you that those who would express a desire to forcibly make protester shut up and agree with them are the most un-American among us

Scroll up and read what I said. Nobody wants to force anyone to shut up, for that is, indeed, un-American. However, I have no problem in exercising my freedom of speech and telling the peace protestors that they are so full of shit they squeak.

[Jack Batty]

Originally posted by MEBuckner

Even Fred Phelps picketting the funeral of a murdered gay person?
Unfortunately, yes. It's the price you pay for free speech.

Ok, prehaps I glossed over the thread too hastily and inadvertantly hijacked it. That wasn't my intention. I just felt like saying something. I'm not sure why gobear is in such a froth. He has admitted to be affected by "blinding rage". I'd say that has something to do with it.

So I'll offer one opinion of my own ...

Should Osama bin Laden be punished (if the evidence points to him)?
Definitely. I am a big fan of justice.

Should he be tortured, and forced to choke on his own shit, and drawn and quartered and have his severed head impaled with a spike and hermetically sealed in a jar so it can go on tour of middle schools so that our children can be taught a lesson?
No, because I'm not a fucking psychopath.

I'm all for justice. I am not all for violence. However, I'm not so ignorant that I don't think some violence will come to pass in this issue. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs and all that.

[waterj2]

Originally posted by dropzone
Originally posted by MEBuckner
What if they're carefully-thought-out, well-reasoned insults? Some of Gobear's comments in the OP were well reasoned. The ones suggesting the protestors want to hug and congratulate bin Laden were gratuitous projection of his own anger. They were not well reasoned.
Dropzone, why is it that it took you until your 11th post to this thread to get around to stating clearly what your specific objection to the OP was? Do you just like hearing yourself talk?

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by Jack Batty
Originally posted by MEBuckner
Even Fred Phelps picketting the funeral of a murdered gay person?
Unfortunately, yes. It's the price you pay for free speech.
Well, now. I believe in freedom of speech. I don't want that taken away, not even from Fred Phelps. I liked the description posted by a Canadian on a thread awhile back, of a Mountie helping Phelps light a Canadian flag on fire, so Phelps wouldn't hurt himself. I thought that was really cool.

But...what you said that I was responding to with the Phelps comparison was:
And you know what, I salute anybody who protests anything in this country -- no matter if I agree with them or not -- because that is a walking, breathing, sign-carrying exhibition of what makes this country great.
I don't want Phelps' rights violated, but I sure as hell don't "salute" him. I mean, I get what you're saying, and I can understand saluting people who stand up for what they believe, even if you don't agree with them, up to a point, anyway. But I can't go so far as to say I would salute anybody who "stands up for what they believe" and is "sincere".

In my opinion, to call Fred Phelps an asshole would be an insult to all the hard-working assholes of the world, which are, after all, necessary orifices which perform the vital function of waste elimination. Fred Phelps is more like a hemorrhoid--he's a useless and harmful swelling on an asshole.

[even sven]

Aye aye aye. In the past couple weeks, I (a person who believes in peace) have had almost as much venom thrown at me as fucking Osama himself. I've been called whiny and rich (funny- because I just realized that I don't have enough money to go shopping for food this week), immoral (like Jesus, I guess), anti-capitalist (well, yeah, but that's unrelated), a divider (uhhh...isn't it divisive to sit around calling other people divisive...and did we all check our duty to think critically about the world at the door when this happened?) and a host of other bad things.

Yo! Peace is a good thing! Peace would have prevented this mess! Yeah, it is unlikely...but the peace protesters of this nation serve a very important symbolic purpose. Try not to think of them as people working towards an actual goal as much as a reminder of the one value that could save us all. We need to remember peace as we gear up for war. We need to imagine what a peaceful world would be like. Peaceniks sit on the other side of the scale, and help to keep our nation in balance. They also inspire the kind of critical thinking that will prevent a groupthink scenerio.

Please, save your vile for those that have killed. Without those few protesting for peace, this nation could get awful scary awful quickly.

[Jack Batty]

I'll clarify my statements a little, since I suppose they were a little vague.

But maybe we should just start a GD thread or something, because I really didn't mean to hijack. I just got a little lazy in not reading the whole thread thoroughly.

I salute the idea of excersising the right to free speech and peaceable assembly. Outside of any message that is being put forth, the first thing I can do is say, "good for you - this is what the constiturion was ensuring you can do, and you're doing it."
After that I can address the issue of what's being protested.

For the Phelps thing, yes he is reprehensible. I don't support his message or his protests by any strectch of the imagination. It is also my opinion that he and his ilk represent a microscopic minority of people. They give ignorance a bad name. They also seem to be their own worst enemies. I don't even see how he can be taken seriously -- his ignorance is laughable. Education can and will defeat them. In the meanttime, if I have the right to stand on the corner and preach about the wonders of Cream Soda, I have to allow him to say whatever he wants too. Rational disagrement is the logical step. Or should we just have Phelps' head on plate too?

As for the bin Laden/war thing. I'm on the side that war is bad. I'm also of the opinion that people who kill 6000 innocent people shouldn't be able to get away with it. So, yes, I am torn. I don't want a war. I don't want any more innocent people to die, no matter what country they live in. But I think bin Laden needs to be stopped. Terrorism needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, none of this will stop without a little fire to fight the fire.

That, in my opinion, is a rational analysis of the situation (albeit astronomically limited in scope). It is also my opinion that wishing to see another human being tortured, no matter what he has done, only displays man's more ugly emotions.

Does anyone really want to see bin Laden have his head blown off, or be chopped in two or be forced to choke to death on his own feces? Why would anybody want to "see" that? What kind of warped brain would welcome sights such as those?

[Broomstick]

Originally posted by Myrr21
A few of my friends went to the protest. They're not short-sighted terrorist-huggers; they're average people who think that maybe the government should see that not everybody in the US is itching for a war.

Ya know, I'm not "itching for war". I really hate war. It sucks. It's hell. People die horrible deaths, lives are shattered, and basically it's a waste of life and resources.

HOWEVER - I do feel that, sometimes, war is the lesser of two evils. And I most certainly do feel that people have a right to defend themselves, up to and including the use of deadly force if that is what is required to stop the attackers.

I think having some voices for peace - in even the most justified of wars - is a good influence. After the war (asssuming these days that there WILL be anything or anyone around "after") we will have to make peace and that requires people not motivated to shed blood and continue the conflict.

I really do wish there was a way to stop further terrorist attacks without killing anymore people. I really do wish this. However, I can't imagine what would work. It takes two parties to make peace but only one to make war. They will attack and kill again regardless of what we do or don't do - the only questions are where, when, how often, and how many dead.

So, I must admit that I can see only war and violence, an extermination of the terrorists, as a viable solution to this problem. This doesn't mean I in any way look forward to this, or enjoy it, or think it's a good thing. I DO think a "war on terrorism" is preferable to letting the bad guys win, though.

If a pacifist can come up with a non-violent solution that will WORK I'd be happy to entertain the idea and even implement it. But so far there's nothing from the pacifist camp that is workable or hasn't been tried already, either by us or someone else, in opposing these guys. Remember, this isn't a conflict that started on September 11 but something that goes back at least until 1979 and possibly farther into the past. It didn't start overnight, we aren't going to finish it that quick, either.

[MEBuckner]

immoral (like Jesus, I guess)
I'm gonna have to refer you to some of my arguments on this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=90189).




As for the whole "I hope bin Laden's eyeballs are eaten by fire ants!" thing: I doubt he (or whoever was behind this attack) will be captured by Interpol and brought back to stand trial with a team of defense attorneys and all that. I can't really say I'm all that bothered by the prospect of him (i.e., bin Laden or whoever was behind this attack) being on the receiving end of a cruise missile or a Special Forces sniper's bullet. (And I'm not even really a death penalty supporter.) That said, I don't really want him tortured in horrible and ingenious ways. Maybe if I was closer to the tragedy, and had actually lost friends and loved ones, I would feel differently--but I think I would be feeling differently, not thinking differently. I also don't believe in eternal damnation to Hell, and in fact I think it's a horrible idea, The Onion's article (http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/hijackers_surprised.html) notwithstanding (and of course part of the point of that was a satire on the evident beliefs of the terrorists that they'd be instantly transported to Paradise for their deeds).

So, kill the perpetrators and planners, kill them violently--blow them to bits--but I don't want to capture them and impale them or burn them alive or stake them out in Central Park to be torn to pieces by an enraged mob of Manhattanites.

[gobear]

Does anyone really want to see bin Laden have his head blown off, or be chopped in two or be forced to choke to death on his own feces? Why would anybody want to "see" that? What kind of warped brain would welcome sights such as those?

I don't necessarily want to see it, but I wouldn't mind if Osama bin Laden suffered horribly. After all, there are people in NYC and here in Virginia who have been burned horribly through his actions, people who have been maimed for life, not to mention people who have killed in unimaginably awful circumstances.

So no, I don't want to understand bin Laden, I don't want to sympathize with him, I don't want to see his side of the story, I don't want to give him probation.

I want him, his followers, and his whole stinking organization wiped off the face of the Earth.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Jack Batty

Should he be tortured, and forced to choke on his own shit, and drawn and quartered and have his severed head impaled with a spike and hermetically sealed in a jar so it can go on tour of middle schools so that our children can be taught a lesson?
No, because I'm not a fucking psychopath.


Jack... Jack Batty. You cracked me up. Thanks.

Originally posted by gobear

You're a lying hypocritical fuckwad who isn't worthy of licking the dirt-encrusted gum off the bottom of my shoe, as much as you'd love the job. What's the matter, can't make your asinine point without lying through your cum-rotted teeth? What a loser. Likes the idea of killing and thinks that makes him a man.

Otto, you lice-ridden spawn of a syphilitic jackal, why don't you use that shriveled piece of moldy fecal matter you call a brain?

Lying? Hypocritical? Back it up, you pathetic faggot! Where have I lied, you sad little troll? I have already said that I don't want innocent people killed, but you're just too fucking' stupid to get that.

And yes, I am a man, more than can be said for a weak, little whiner like you.

gobear and Otto
sittin' in a tree
k-i-s-s-i-n-g
first comes love
then comes marriage
then comes dropzone
in the baby carriage !

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by gobear
Back it up, you pathetic faggot!

[Museum Curator]

And here is Otto's lasting claim to fame: he got a gay man to call him a faggot.

[/Museum Curator]

[Myrr21]

What is the goal of the peace protesters, really? What is their endgame? What is their real strategy to seek retaliation for the attacks on us, the 6000+ slaughtered?
I haven't heard a good one yet.
Most of them don't have one. A friend who went to the protest really wanted to shout (in response to "War is not the answer"), "then what is?"

Personally, I'm very anti war. And very pro-black ops. We used to be so good at that sort of thing. Well, at least better at that sort of thing. It seems to me that the current situation--i.e. we want a few guys out of a whole country that is only sorta connected with them--calls for a good covert "grab em and fly off" approach. It sends the "don't fuck with us" message without all the horridness of a war.

Hell, I don't know how feasible that is (not being a military intelligence type), but if we can, I like that option best.

So...do you consider that a viable alternative?

[Monocracy]

I see the word retaliate thrown around a lot since the attacks. Interestingly, my dictionaries definition of the word is "to return like for like; esp., to repay evil with evil."

Other words i've heard in relation to this are revenge, punishment, and justice. These concepts, however, have no value on the international scale. What should be sought is a way to prevent this from happening again, and what is good for your country, and for the world (sometimes this involves seeking justice or meting punishment).

I think a major military offensive will be counter-productive to a fight against Islamic terrorism. Bombing Muslim countries is not a way to dispel the image of America as "The Great Satan". Even a surgical strike against bin Laden will do little. It may disorganise Mid-East terrorists temporarily (and it may not), but more will take their place. The only way to deal with this is to strike at the root of the problem so we don't have to keep fighting the symptoms.

I think dropzone pretty much hit the fish on the head with his proposal. Increase American (and UN) presence in Islamic countries ... install some puppet (or at least friendly) governments ... help them economically, invade them economically ... instill tolerance of other cultures through understanding. Dying for your religion seems a little less attractive when you have something to live for.

gobear
If innocents are killed, the Taliban and bin Laden are to blame.
gobear
The US was not the aggressor, it was the victim.
bin Laden would say the exact same, yet opposite, things. That America is to blame for all the innocents that are killed. And that the US was the aggressor when they established their presence in Islamic countries and gave aid to Islam's enemies. To use a couple trite analogies: two sides of the same coin and can't see the forest from the trees.

[manhattan]

Originally posted by Monocracy
I think dropzone pretty much hit the fish on the head with his proposal. Increase American (and UN) presence in Islamic countries ... install some puppet (or at least friendly) governments ... help them economically, invade them economically ... instill tolerance of other cultures through understanding. Dying for your religion seems a little less attractive when you have something to live for.


Not to get all civil in this whirlwind of Pitishness, but I think we need to do one more thing. We need, both for ourselves and for potential future adversaries, an "oh fuck" moment -- something that makes people sit up and say, "holy shit, messing with those guys is a bad, bad idea."

But I don't know what form that moment should take for a civilized nation. Perhaps we should start a thread soliciting ideas?

[Stoid]

Originally posted by manhattan
[ We need, both for ourselves and for potential future adversaries, an "oh fuck" moment -- something that makes people sit up and say, "holy shit, messing with those guys is a bad, bad idea."


This assumes such a thing is even possible. What have you heard that makes you think it is? Because everything that I have seen and heard tells me it isn't.

There is no "oh, fuck!" moment for people who not only don't care about dying, but embrace it. The only possible (and even this is not sure) way that you might be able to solicit this reaction is by doing things that the United States simply cannot do: torture people. Maybe if we employed some of the creative tactics put forth in this and other threads, involving live dismemberments, red ants, fire, etc, we might freak these guys out. MAYBE. But since we aren't going to go there...what do we have? Starvation? Already there. Disease? Check. Death? Bring it on!

While your desire to acheive the "Oh, Fuck!" moment is certainly understandable...in this instance, it is a touching fantasy.

Afghanis view our unwillingness to take casualties as a weakness. They are right. And I am not the only one to say this, some guy on nightline in a military outfit with lots of shiny shit on his chest said the same thing. They will happily die for their cause, over and over again. Us? Not so much... And you know what that means? They are tougher than we are.

So now what?

stoid

[MEBuckner]

...Bombing Muslim countries is not a way to dispel the image of America as "The Great Satan"....

I think dropzone pretty much hit the fish on the head with his proposal. Increase American (and UN) presence in Islamic countries ... install some puppet (or at least friendly) governments ... help them economically, invade them economically ... instill tolerance of other cultures through understanding. Dying for your religion seems a little less attractive when you have something to live for.
While I admit I find the idea somewhat attractive, a wholescale effort to Westernize and "civilize" places like Afghanistan--complete with an "American (and UN) presence" and "puppet" governments--will definitely not serve to dispel our image as "The Great Satan" in the eyes of the zealots. On the whole, they'd probably prefer we just bomb them.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by Fenris
I thought I'd point out a similar flaw in drop's statements.Which you are welcome to do. I am generally wrongest when I'm loudest. Or most open to criticism, at least.

I suppose this is the wrong time and place to congratulate gobear and anthracite on their posting milestones but, since I don't much care, I will anyway. So there!

[Amulet]

Originally posted by Monocracy
I think dropzone pretty much hit the fish on the head with his proposal. Increase American (and UN) presence in Islamic countries ... install some puppet (or at least friendly) governments ... help them economically, invade them economically ... instill tolerance of other cultures through understanding. Dying for your religion seems a little less attractive when you have something to live for.

*snort*

If this happens, I will be running the pool on how long it takes for some mealy-mouthed whiny-ass liberal to start bitching about American cultural imperialism.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
...will definitely not serve to dispel our image as "The Great Satan" in the eyes of the zealots. On the whole, they'd probably prefer we just bomb them. Of course they would! Then they can play the victim and get loads of recruits with nothing to lose! As I mentioned once before here, Abdul is a lot less likely to become a suicide bomber if it's going to interfere with his promotion at the software company.

In addition, as was proven in the American and French Revolutions, it is a large middle class that tyrants fear the most and who create the most successful, longest lasting revolts. Folks with something to lose aren't going to put up with Talibanish bullshit. The key to stability is not the Soviet "bring everybody down to the same level" way. It is bringing everybody UP at least to a reasonable level, and give them the chance to rise farther. A place where I heartily DISAGREE with some of the protestors is role of Capitalism. I see it as generally positive.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by manhattan
We need, both for ourselves and for potential future adversaries, an "oh fuck" moment -- something that makes people sit up and say, "holy shit, messing with those guys is a bad, bad idea."I believe that giving us an "Oh, FUCK!" moment was the intent of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. You'll notice it didn't work on us any better than the Blitz worked on the English. Folks don't seem to be wired that way.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by waterj2
Dropzone, why is it that it took you until your 11th post to this thread to get around to stating clearly what your specific objection to the OP was?Did I do it that quickly? Sheesh, normally it takes me longer, if ever.

[Bluesman]

I completely diagree with this line of reasoning. NOBODY is out there fighting because he doesn't have the matching washer/dryer combo, or because he doesn't have the opportunity to go to a REALLY good school. You completely underestimate the power of idealogy.

Americans are more prone than most of the world's people to graft our outlook onto everybody else. That's what is going on here. Americans that believe terrorists act out of envy of our material comforts are simply not correct. UbL himself is extremely wealthy, but chooses to live like a miserly hermit because that's what he believes his faith calls him to do: use whatever resources he has to kill Americans.

If we increase out aid ten-fold, if we try to use Coke and Levi's to "win 'em over", if we ignore what the terrorists themselves are saying, we get out of it what we got from the Somalis: not peace and co-operation, but the backs of their hands. Listen to what they're telling us, because people like them are very up-front about what they want, and the methods they use to get it. Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf", and when it turns out he meant what he said, the West was shocked. Mao wrote down his musings, and the West was appalled by the shock of the Ciultural Revolution.

No, sir. They mean what they say. Idealogues are very obliging in laying it out plainly, and the West is equally predictable in its collective flinching from this reality: they canNOT conceive that some people hate us enough to kill our children. Islamic fundamentalists utterly reject the ideals of the West. This is war to the death, either liberal democracy or Islamic fundamentalism.

[Monocracy]

MEBuckner
While I admit I find the idea somewhat attractive, a wholescale effort to Westernize and "civilize" places like Afghanistan--complete with an "American (and UN) presence" and "puppet" governments--will definitely not serve to dispel our image as "The Great Satan" in the eyes of the zealots. On the whole, they'd probably prefer we just bomb them.
Of course. That's kind of the point. Show the zealots that terrorism will lead to the exact opposite of what they want. They expect bombs, they get culture. It will make them think twice before doing it again. The ordinary Muslims will dislike it at first, and it may even create some more zealots (but fewer than would be created by bombing), but eventually, after being inflicted with wealth, their hatred would turn to a more normal contempt. Just like everyone hates the French, but no one goes out to bomb the Eiffel Tower.

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Monocracy
Just like everyone hates the French, but no one goes out to bomb the Eiffel Tower.

IIRC, it was recently revealed that a plot was foiled in the 1990's, by Bin Laden's group, to blow up the Eiffel Tower.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by Bluesman
I completely diagree with this line of reasoning.And you make some excellent points. There obviously is no magic bullet that a few people on a message board are going to come up with. The problem is too complex. Which is actually one of my (many) points. We have to ALL work together and coordinate ALL of the ideas that will help to solve PART of the problem. We cannot dismiss any ideas--yours, mine, the protestors, even Milo's ;) --as overly simplistic and naive. A complex problem will have a complex solution.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by Monocracy
install some puppet (or at least friendly) governmentsBTW, ix-nay on the uppet-pay, 'kay? the word you are looking for is "cooperative." ;)

[Milossarian]

We cannot dismiss any ideas--yours, mine, the protestors, even Milo's ;)
dropzone, I invite you to eat shit once again.

How amusing that I get patronized by you, who has offered among the most useless, ineffective, pollyannaish shit in this entire thread.

You state that Bluesman "makes some excellent points," and criticize me in the same breath. If you'd care to pull your head out of Joni Mitchell's support hose for a moment, I'd like to point out that he and I advocate almost precisely the same approach.

(Though I will admit he his far more eloquent with his views than me.)

[elucidator]

Milo, my lad, you're missing something here. According to The Rules, when a poster ends with a smilie ;), you are invited to consider the post as having a humorous light, and are thereby enjoined from a bitter, churlish riposte.

For instance, if I were to say something like "Is an invitation to eat shit an invitation to crack open your skull?";)

The correct response is something like "Fuck you, goddam hippy faggot pansy;)"

No need to thank me. Glad to help.

[King Rat]

Originally posted by even sven
Without those few protesting for peace, this nation could get awful scary awful quickly. even sven If your meaning is in general terms, that a nation that stifles dissent will fall head first into totalitarianism, then I agree. But I am using your statement to show why someone like me (and perhaps some others) do not like the current crop of peace protesters. It is this seemingly sanctimonous belief that you are the guardians of some kind of higher morality that no one else but yourselves can achieve.

[Otto]

gobearLying? Hypocritical? Back it up, you pathetic faggot! Where have I lied, you sad little troll?

When you said "Otto...wishes to give aid and comfort to the murderers of 6,000 Americans." That's a lie. Your starting this thread is hypocritical, given your responses to a certain thread of mine elsewhere in the Pit.

And yes, I am a man, more than can be said for a weak, little whiner like you.

Oh yeah, it takes a real big man to go along uncritically with the warmongering mob. It takes a hell of a lot more courage to speak out for peace than against it. Fucking neolib fag, thinking he's "progressive" because every couple of years he votes for a Democrat. So concerned about the deaths of 6,000 Americans that he cheers the deployment of another 28,000 into the line of fire. Or don't you mind American deaths as long as they're in a uniform?

Michael Ellis[Museum Curator]

And here is Otto's lasting claim to fame: he got a gay man to call him a faggot.

[/Museum Curator]

Naw, my lasting claim to fame is that I got a board response from Cecil himself to my very first post. Whereas gobear's opinion of me is a walnut in the batter of eternity.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by Milossarian
(Though I will admit he his far more eloquent with his views than me.) Actually, Bluesman has consistantly shown the ability to think things through and even, dare I say, admit that someone else has a point or two of his own. You, sir, have consistantly shown an inability to do the same. You get your head stuck in a rut and keep bellowing the same bullshit like a boozed-up barroom blowhard. This is not a recent development. You have been that way as long as I have known you. I can like and respect people with whom I do not agree. You have taught me to neither like nor respect you. You are an annoying mosquito to me, buzzing around, making the same sound all the time. I no longer care to notice you. You are irrelevant.

[gobear]

So concerned about the deaths of 6,000 Americans that he cheers the deployment of another 28,000 into the line of fire. Or don't you mind American deaths as long as they're in a uniform?

You are vile. Nobody cheers deployment of soldiers. I have friends and family in the military, and I don't want to see them hurt.

Why don't you tell us how YOU would bring OBL to pay for his crimes?

[Dale The Bold]

The problem that these protestors have is that they feel that we are retaliating out of revenge. We are not "retaliating" at all. Terrorists necessitate their own destruction. They need not be avenged, but they do need to be stopped. If Bin Laden could have been killed before planning the WTC attack, that would have saved thousands of lives. There is only one way to prevent him from killing again. If we can take him alive, that's fantastic, but we also have to stop the madmen who are following his cause. We cannot pretend that it never happened. We were living as though it never would happen before it happened. It's great to tolerate lifestyles and choices, but we shouldn't tolerate hate. If we do not respond, we are inviting more attacks and leaving the door open for hate. We don't hate Bin Laden (okay, some do, but that's not what our motivation should be), we just cannot tolerate his actions and need to protect ourselves from him. America was founded on fighting for freedom. Freedom has never just fallen out of the sky, so don't expect it to this time.

[Milossarian]

dropzone - And you are a useless, pseudo-sophist, who thinks he has the moral high-ground for equivocating over an incident that calls for the most unequivocal response in U.S. history.

You can't possibly find me as irrelevant as I find you.

[Blackclaw]

As a member of the "warmongering mob" let me try to very carefully explain at least what my problems with the peace protestors are.

1)Bad memories. My father served in Vietnam. Many of the peace protestors of that era were vicious evil bastards when it came to how they treated military personnel. I've noted that from the period of the gulf war to the present, the vast majority of peace protestors are very careful to show concern and respect for military personnel, but my ill feelings still linger. Whenever I see Jane Fonda, I remember her posed atop a North Vietnamese AAA gun. My father's aircraft was once hit by a AAA gun. Call me grumpy, but she praised the folks who tried to kill my dad and I hold a grudge.

2)Discompulation. Looking across a small pond of posters we can clearly see that the protestors "Don't want your racist capitalist down with US Imperialism! Anarchy rules! Impeach Bush! Hi Mom! Oil companies are evil! Save the Environoment! Apricots go great with mustard! US out of the Middle-East! WAR!" Call us mob members confused, but what the fuck are they trying to say? The problem is when the protestors have a rally they send out a large call for everyone to come join in so that they can get their numbers up. Every dim bulb with a leftest or rightest bent shows up and the protest gets numbers but loses coherency. They need one peace group to get organized and put forth a coherent plan of action. Go for quality not quantity. I could understand the message "Justice not revenge!" Heck, that's my goal too. But I can't tell if the current group of protestors wants careful use of force to minimize civilian casualties or wants us to surrender to the terrorists, drape our women in bedsheets, and shoot people in soccer stadiums.

3)Some of the protestors either want us to give into the terrorist demands or do nothing at all. In part this complaint is linked to point #2. I want to seperate the protestors into easily identified groups so I know which ones to direct my utter contempt. Those who would have us do nothing are basically asking us to stand against a brick wall while being fired at. It's illogical. It's stupid. It's suicidal. And it's immoral to do nothing while our fellow citizens die.

[Protesilaus]

Originally posted by Otto
It takes a hell of a lot more courage to speak out for peace than against it.
It takes a hell of a lot more courage to run with the bulls in Pamplona than to not run. Doesn't make it the intelligent thing to do.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

I'm just real, real, real curious to know if those of you who roll your eyes and smirk at the rest of us have any idea whatsoever what many pacifists stand for. I'll give you a neat hint: Justice is a big part of it. Not running up and handing flowers to killers.

As long as you don't get the pacifist cause mixed up completely with the people who are choosing to march for other reasons, rant on baby.

[Cheesesteak]

I'm just a bit confused about what these people are protesting. They were going to protest the IMF and World Bank, now they are protesting for "peace", whatever that means. It seems remarkably convenient that they could just change the whole purpose of the protest so easily.

What actions by the US gov't are they against? As we all know, not a single person has been killed by the US armed forces in retaliation for this attack, not one. We have not even fired a single bullet in anger. We are approaching this from a diplomatic perspective, gaining support from nations across the globe to stamp out international terrorism. We are committed to using methods other than warfare and killing to stop them, though conventional armed conflict will be used when needed.

What is wrong with this policy? What about it implies that the US gov't is not looking for the most peaceful possible solution, preventing loss of life? I would be more understanding of their position if we had done something.

As it stands, these protesters seem to be just anti-government, anti-Bush loudmouths looking to get on TV.

[Monty]

Just a "other person's point of view" comment here, Blackclaw: The folks on the anti-aircraft gun very well may have considered your dad as trying to kill them.

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by Monty
Just a "other person's point of view" comment here, Blackclaw: The folks on the anti-aircraft gun very well may have considered your dad as trying to kill them.

My displeasure isn't with them. They were soldiers in a war. I understand their actions. I don't hold a grudge against them. My problem is with Jane.

It's one thing to be against a war. And with the Vietnam conflict there certainly was a lot to be against. But it is another thing entirely to be rooting for the active demise of your fellow countrymen. This is especially callous when there is a draft and your fellow countrymen don't have a heck of a lot of choice about being there in the first place.

I have noted the vast majority of the current group of peace protestors have been very careful not to wish harm upon members of the military. So this really is not a point of contention that I have with them. I just noted it to explain why I tend to be prejudice against peace protestors in general. It isn't fair to them and I acknowledge that and do try to take steps to be rational about whatever issues they are espousing. But my prejudice is still there. So I thought it best to be upfront about it so folks can call me on it if I start to be unfair just cause I have bad memories of peace protestors in the past.

[VarlosZ]

I originally posted this in a previous hippie-bashing thread, but I think it works even better here:

I have always believed that what the world really needs is more anger. This is more true now than ever before. As such, I wholeheartedly endorse this open hostility towards people who shy away from violence and death. Clearly, they are the problem.

I am apalled by the fact that they advocate temperance and moderation without a complete alternate plan of action. Furthermore, it is not at all hypocritical for us to attack them as such without being able to show what, if anything, military strikes can realistically hope to accomplish.

Why, if it weren't for the goddamned hippies, we'd be strong and united, which would make us better than all those weaker, less hawkish, more homosexual nations.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my apointment at the recruitment office. Like the rest of you, I signed up for the marines because I am more than willing to put my own life on the line for the sake of the military actions I that I so obviously support.

Cheesesteak:
I'm just a bit confused about what these people are protesting. They were going to protest the IMF and World Bank, now they are protesting for "peace", whatever that means. It seems remarkably convenient that they could just change the whole purpose of the protest so easily.
You do realize that it's not all the same people, right? Since I think that it's sort of a good thing, I wouldn't be caught dead protesting the IMF. On the other hand, I would strongly consider protesting military action (given certain circumstances, of course).

Milo:
. . . equivocating over an incident that calls for the most unequivocal response in U.S. history.
Don't you think that that's the point? An unequivocal response implies knowledge of the best response; dropzone clearly doesn't think you have it.

On second thought, could you spell out what you mean by "unequivocal"? For that matter, are you implying that dz is attempting to mislead when you say he is "equivocating," or merely that he allows some ambiguity into his thought?

[Jodi]

Well, I have to say I watched part of the protests on C-SPAN over the weekend and I had three reactions:

1. One of the top five reasons this country is great, and maybe the number one reason, is that people can go out there and say whatever sort of lame-ass nonsense they want, and they are not molested, arrested, or attacked. Every time I heard what a piece of shit country this is, I thought "the very fact you can even say that makes a lie of your statement." And that really kind of cheered me up.

2. Most of what I heard being said was IMO idiocy, but it was not pernicious idiocy -- the kind you have to really think about to figure out why it doesn't make sense -- it was obvious idiocy. Example: The (as-yet nonexistent) war by the U.S. is fueled by institutional racism -- in other words, we want to bomb the crap out of Afghans because they're darker than we are. Right! I couldn't even work up much outrage over the protests because the vast majority of what was being said seemed so very, well, silly.

3. I also was and remain pretty amused by the "let's break shit and assault people for peace!" mentality, admittedly more evident in the WTO "protests" in Seattle but nevertheless on occasional display this weekend. I'm still not sure how that works.

Anyway, I cound't get too upset over it. Maybe I'm just running out of outrage at this point, I don't know.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Originally posted by Jodi


3. I also was and remain pretty amused by the "let's break shit and assault people for peace!" mentality, admittedly more evident in the WTO "protests" in Seattle but nevertheless on occasional display this weekend. I'm still not sure how that works.


You'd like this. I went all over downtown Ann Arbor last week looking for a bumper sticker with some variety of peace slogan on it. I went everywhere--to the gift shop of the buddhist temple, the crunchy bookstores, the artsy-fartsy gift stores with names like "Earth Wisdom" and "Peaceable Kingdom." Nada. Nothing. As we stomped out of my fifth store I muttered to my friend "Jesus christ, if I don't find a peace bumper sticker in the next store I'm going to fucking kill someone!"

Oops. Heh heh.

[Wildest Bill]

Damn good post Gobear. Glad you told me about it I might have missed it.

[gobear]

Damn good post Gobear. Glad you told me about it I might have missed it

Wildest Bill approves!!!
(slaps hand to forehead)
You may say to yourself, "This is not my beautiful post"
You may say to yourself, "This is not my beautiful board."
You may say to yourself, "Am I right, or am I wrong?"
and you may say to yourself, "My God, what have I done?"

[Otto]

gobearYou are vile.

Big talk coming from a liar and a hypocrite. Ready yet to admit you lied? Didn't think so.

Nobody cheers deployment of soldiers.

You must not be watching the same news broadcasts I am. Or reading the same "why haven't we bombed anyone yet" threads here that I have. Or remembering your own "I can't believe only one homo on these boards wants to rev up the killin', the military is so right to keep us out" post.

I have friends and family in the military, and I don't want to see them hurt.

Pop quiz: where are your friends and family more likely to be hurt, at their homes in the United States or deployed to Afghanistan and surrounding regions?

Why don't you tell us how YOU would bring OBL to pay for his crimes?

I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm not that arrogant, unlike some people to whose message I'm responding right now. But I do know that war does not stop war. We've already had a "war to end all wars," and how many wars have we had since then?

Or does none of this penetrate the "blind rage" you've cloaked yourself in?

Oh, and to whomever was babbling about running with the bulls, that's not an act of courage. It's an act of stupidity.

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by Otto
But I do know that war does not stop war. [/B]

All wars - no. Some wars - yes. Passively sitting by does not stop wars either. It breeds them.

I'm not saying all wars require violence to end. There are many case where diplomacy does the trick. It is and should always be our first tool. But violence is often necessary where diplomacy fails. Passivism never ends wars.

I don't belive diplomacy is going to get us anywhere with the Taliban. But you can't claim we're not trying. The Pakistanis are getting ready for a third trip into Afghnistan while our military patiently waits.

[Protesilaus]

Originally posted by Otto
Oh, and to whomever was babbling about running with the bulls, that's not an act of courage. It's an act of stupidity.
Which was my whole point. You know, how someone can think they're doing something courageous when taking a little time to think rationally would reveal how monumentally stupid and potentially dangerous their actions really are.

[Jodi]

GOBEAR, re WILDEST BILL --

Not that you asked for it, but . . . boy, can I relate! I was knee deep in an argument once and had Phaedrus -- Phaedrus! -- drop by to tell me how right I was, and how I was one of his favorite posters. I've never figured out how best to say, "Urk. Thanks. I guess." :)

[gobear]

Otto, go away. You are babbling to yourself, and I would think the responses in your "USA chant thread" would have convinced you that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong.

I have not lied once in this thread, or ever. Your attack on firefighters in NYC showed us where your sympathies are, and that's not with the United States. It's possible to want peace because one honestly believes that that is the best course to end terror. However mistaken that may be, at least I can respect it. If you'd bother to scroll up, you'd see that I agreed with Dropzone when he proposed giving more aid to Afghan refugees and having the US reconstruct Afghanistan after we capture.

All your posts have done is to show that you are the anti-US, anti-capitalism, hurrah for the enemies of the US type who sashayed down the streets of DC this past weekend.

and again, how am I a hypocrite?

Pop quiz: where are your friends and family more likely to be hurt, at their homes in the United States or deployed to Afghanistan and surrounding regions?

Good question. We all live and work here in the Metro DC area; some of my friends are posted to the Pentagon.


I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm not that arrogant, unlike some people to whose message I'm responding right now. But I do know that war does not stop war. We've already had a "war to end all wars," and how many wars have we had since then

Don't be so hard on yourself, you're plenty arrogant. If you have no answers, then why are you posting?

Besides, we're not at war, putz. Did we immediately retaliate against the Afghans,or have we worked through diplomatic channels and worked on building international consensus for a response to OBL? I thought that you would applaud Bush's restraint. Isn't a peaceful, diplomatic response what you wanted?

It's been three weeks since the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, and therehas not been ANY military response yet. no bombings, no reprisals, nothing. So why are you so unhappy?

and no, I did not want gay folks to "rev up the killin'" but to demonstrate loyalty to the US and to the president, even if he is a Republican.

[Jodi]

OTTO, not to pile on you, but my chief beef at this point with those the U.S.'s response thus far is that far from not having "all the answers," they largely don't have any answer. Oh, y'all are full of what we shouldn't do, but you seem to be a little short on what we should.

As I have said before (several times), if anyone has a non-military solution to this extremely knotty problem that does NOT represent a total abandonment of the idea of justice for the victims, I'd love to hear it.

Nobody wants to go to war; it's just that some of us see precious few other choices that do not amount to peace at the expense of justice.

[Jodi]

That should read "those who oppose the U.S.'s actions." Sorry.

[gobear]

As I have said before (several times), if anyone has a non-military solution to this extremely knotty problem that does NOT represent a total abandonment of the idea of justice for the victims, I'd love to hear it

It isn't just justice for the victims, but also to prevent there being future victims. If the US does nothing and lets OBL go free, as Otto and his kind want, what is to prevent OBL from launching a nerve gas attack on the Chicago El, or detonating a low-yield suitcase nuke in downtown LA? As the WTC and Pentagon attacks have shown, nothing is outside the realm of possiblity right now.

[John Corrado]

Originally posted by dropzone
Folks with something to lose aren't going to put up with Talibanish bullshit. The key to stability is not the Soviet "bring everybody down to the same level" way. It is bringing everybody UP at least to a reasonable level, and give them the chance to rise farther. A place where I heartily DISAGREE with some of the protestors is role of Capitalism. I see it as generally positive.

Question- do you think that statement also applies to Northern Ireland? I wasn't aware that N.I. is lacking in a large middle-class; my assumption was that, like Britain and Ireland, it *has* a large middle-class.

Of course, I may be wrong in that assumption; if so, please educate me.

[The Great Gazoo]

Originally posted by gobear
Even though the IMF and World Bank prudently canceled their meetings in DC this month, the fuckhead anarchists and hippies paraded anyway, this time protesting in an anti-capitalist, anti-racism, anti-technology march.

Thousands of Americans have been murdered, and you want to give the architect of the terrorist acts a flower and a hug? Let him get off scot-free? Maybe if you sing Kum Ba Ya loud enough and wave your giant puppets, bin Laden will apologize! :rolleyes: Frankly, I suspect a lot of the protesters today would like to give bin Laden a medal for killing so many capitalists.

Nobody wants to kill innocent Afghans, but if people are hurt, why don't you use your head and blame the Taliban for sheltering this monster? If innocents are killed, the Taliban and bin Laden are to blame.

In addition,
1) Show your faces. Wearing black masks and bandannas makes you look dangerous and untrustworthy. If your cause is just, why do you hide?

2) Drop the fuckin' puppets and drums. You look like a bunch of kids on break, instead of serious activists. If you are so intent on avoiding war, then why don't you stay home and build up grass roots support for your cause instead of coming to DC and being a royal pain in the ass?

3) Anticapitalism is an asinine idea. If you are so intent on achieving global justice, why don't you lobby for democracy and opportunity in the Middle East? Capitalism is the only way for other nations to improve their economies. Socialism doesn't work.

I guess it's more adult to say "Nuke them all to hell" rather than trying for a peaceful solution. After all, the poor Afghanis with barely a bowl to keep their rice in were the cause of this :rolleyes:

And it's asinine to oppose a system that pays workers in China, Viet Nam, Mexico etc. 12 cents an hour while gouging people $120 for tennis shoes. Sheesh.

The masks, drums and the puppets? Marketing, my friend. People pay a lot more attention to that than a group of people walking down the street. You should know that, being the big Capitalist you are.

You say nobody wants to kill innocent Afghans, but you don't mind if they do get killed, do you? "It's all OSL's fault" absolves us of any blame.

BTW, these marches were all over the country, not just DC. When I saw these marches, I thought "Geez, this is lame. They just don't know how to do it." But, seeing that they get a rise out of the Right Wing Nazis like you, I may join them next time.

[Michael Ellis]

Pop quiz: where are your friends and family more likely to be hurt, at their homes in the United States or deployed to Afghanistan and surrounding regions?

Considering that several thousand Americans died in their own country, vs. 0 dead in Afganistan so far, I'd say this question is a complete fucking strawman.

I don't claim to have all the answers.

Then don't claim you know better than everyone else.

Oh, and to whomever was babbling about running with the bulls, that's not an act of courage. It's an act of stupidity.

So is not wiping out Bin Laden and his Holes in the Hills gang before they get their hands on nukes or anthrax.

[andros]

Nice move, sparky. Disagree with someone by calling him a Nazi.

Real bright.

[andros]

Err, that was addressed to Gazoo, of course. Sorry 'bout that.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by The Great Gazoo
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gobear
[B] But, seeing that they get a rise out of the Right Wing Nazis like you, I may join them next time.

Dang, it's been awhile since I've seen an honest injun Godwinization of a thread. Good move slick. :rolleyes:

[gobear]

I guess it's more adult to say "Nuke them all to hell" rather than trying for a peaceful solution.

And where did I say, "Nuke them all to hell?" There is a medium between extremes, you know, or do you?


And it's asinine to oppose a system that pays workers in China, Viet Nam, Mexico etc. 12 cents an hour while gouging people $120 for tennis shoes. Sheesh.

No, it's not asinine at all to want economic justice, but capitalism is the only way to ensure raising of a nation's GDP. Socialism sure has been a roaring failure. Sure, you need to set up legislation to protect workers, but capitalism needs to be fine-tuned, not eliminated.


The masks, drums and the puppets? Marketing, my friend.

If you understood marketing, you would know that you want your brand to be associated with a positive image.
Parading like a bunch of kids on holiday doesn't make anyone want to listen to you. Why don't you take out the noserings, cut your hair, go to grad school in economics so you'll know what you're talking about, and get involved in NGOs that work to protect the interests of Third-world laborers?

You say nobody wants to kill innocent Afghans, but you don't mind if they do get killed, do you? "It's all OSL's fault" absolves us of any blame.

That is too vile to respond to.

BTW, these marches were all over the country, not just DC.... But, seeing that they get a rise out of the Right Wing Nazis like you, I may join them next time

A. I live in the DC area, I'm just reporting what I saw.
B. I'm a gay Democrat who voted for Gore. The Right-wing Nazis won't let me in their club. :rolleyes:

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by The Great Gazoo
But, seeing that they get a rise out of the Right Wing Nazis like you, I may join them next time.

*Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!*

I'm sorry, you just lost the argument.

But you did get bonus points for calling a gay man a Nazi. :rolleyes:

[Milossarian]

Varlos -

Whatever problems I might have with the federal government's level of preparedness and intelligence-gathering leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks, I'd say its response since, from the president on down to individual FBI agents, has been pretty close to perfect.

I put no restrictions on that response, knowing that the leaders orchestrating it will already do whatever they can to minimize hardship on civilians, while eradicating the terrorist networks and governments that overtly support them (which would consist of the Taliban and, perhaps, Iraq). And I recognize the absolute need for a military component to it, particularly for governments that were complicit in slaughtering about 6,000 of our civilians, in civilian targets, on American soil, in a time of peace.

What's the standard, dictionary definition for "unequivocal?" Clear. Unambiguous. Unquestionable. Not bogged down with provisos.

The people that did this want nothing more than to kill and maim Americans (and I'd guess other Western nations that are our close allies need to watch out, too). They have proven they are willing to die to do it. We know there are more of them waiting their chance to do the same. And we also know that there is no action we can take that will magically make them stop wanting us dead as their goal.

So ... explain to me again why we should not simply evaluate the possibilities of a nonviolent solution, see that they are clearly not usable here, and turn the page?

Reading diligently through this thread to try to find dropzone's proposed solutions (which was hard, because most of what he has done is whine about right-wingers and their insensitivity, all the while bashing them with as much vigor as he accuses the right-wingers of wielding).

All I could find was this:
What the fuck is wrong with working for peace? Where does it say, other than in some of the bilge being posted here, that the only way to stop terrorism is with total war? Sorry if I'm a craven coward to you, asswipe, but my religious training DEMANDS that I exhaust all other avenues before going to war.
I don't know of anyone that is advocating stopping terrorism through "total war." I know a lot of people are advocating stopping terrorism through a comprehensive approach that includes a military component. And I would add I want my military to focus on two things - staying alive themselves, and accomplishing their objectives. I don't want them put into situations of tortuous rules of engagement where, if they are under fire and being picked off one by one, they cannot fire back. That can't happen.

So I ask, what leads you to believe that all other avenues aren't being utilized, and unworkable ones discarded?

The base dishonesty of the above position is in the idea that people with that view are willing to move on to other effective solutions if peace is proven not workable. Some are; some aren't.

dropzone also said this:
I even believe in a certain amount of retaliation and have watched with interest and admiration (and stated so here) the delicate way Dubya is handling a delicate situation--nobody who didn't hate us before 9/11 seems to have started hating us thanks to actions we have or haven't taken. Things are proceeding nicely and with all due and no undue deliberation. And I actually, and have stated as much in this thread, believe that some of the protestors are silly and misguided and worthy objects of ridicule.
Which indicates he agrees with my take on the response.

September 11 was a pivotal day in world history. It was a slap in humanity's face that could send us down one of two paths. One is a continuation of the cycle of strike and counterstrike and we do not grow from the experience. The second uses the nearly universal condemnation of the attacks to bring about genuine and positive change. With the first the victims just stay victims. With the second their deaths could have some meaning.
I disagree to an extent. I have heard a lot about how eradicating the al Qaida network, and Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, will not work, and won't be a solution. As other pissed off radical Muslims will just take their places.

Cite?

It's never been done before. We never responded overwhelmingly, as a unified, civilized world, to any terrorist act, including the bombing of the embassies and the U.S.S. Cole.

Again, whatever our faults before, we are responding now. Hell, we have Russia and China on our side now!

Al Quaida, because they are directly responsible for Sept. 11, will face military wrath. They're going to die. The other groups capable of global terrorism can be squeezed out of existence through a variety of means, and will be easier to spot in their plotting through heightened diligence and intelligence-gathering worldwide.

To eliminate the other large-scale terrorist groups will take some doing, and a lot of pressure on allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and United Arab Emirites. They will need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. And they need to face significant penalties (chiefly financial) if they don't do their part in this effort. And it will take a unified front by the Western powers to make those financial disincentives have teeth. That's why I was heartened by Bush's tough talk on the financial front of this - help us cut off their money, or your bank won't be doing business in our country.

dropzone also said:
So, in a nutshell, my solution is to support what the US government is doing, expand it in concert with the UN, especially with other Mid East governments so the "It's a War Against Islam!" nuts can't get a foothold, and work for peace.
And I have stated in numerous places on these boards that I fully support the component of this effort that is going to involve direct aid and information to the citizens of Afghanistan and elsewhere. It's crucial.

So, again we're in agreement. Although some of your vagaries above may make one wonder what we do to "work for peace;" if you will "support what the US government is doing" if and when projectiles fly; and how exactly the effort would be expanded "in concert with the UN."

I guess your only problem with me, then, is my lack of tolerance of unworkable solutions.

[Blackclaw]

Gobear, I know this your fight, so please excuse me. Sometimes when an easy target walks in front of my flamethrower, I can't help but squeeze the trigger.

Originally posted by The Great Gazoo

I guess it's more adult to say "Nuke them all to hell" rather than trying for a peaceful solution. After all, the poor Afghanis with barely a bowl to keep their rice in were the cause of this :rolleyes:

Gobear never said this, so why are your arguing against it? Ah yes, because it's easier to argue against something that you simply invented. This is what is called a strawman arguement. You'll see it referenced often. So by all means take your strawman and stuff it your ass with your rolly eyes.


And it's asinine to oppose a system that pays workers in China, Viet Nam, Mexico etc. 12 cents an hour while gouging people $120 for tennis shoes. Sheesh.

And this would be your attempt at sarcasm, yes? And I see your brillant analysis fails to take into account the cost of living in each region you listed as well as the hyper-inflation that would result in paying wages adjusted for US workers. There certainly are complex issues that could be discussed when it comes to world economics, but let's leave your ignorance on this point behind, safely tucked away in your rectum with your strawman and rolly eyes, and move on.


The masks, drums and the puppets? Marketing, my friend. People pay a lot more attention to that than a group of people walking down the street. You should know that, being the big Capitalist you are.

But good marketing tells me what it wants me to buy. Drums and puppets are fine acessories if they are centered around a fucking coherent message. I don't know what the current crop of protesters want from me. Should I take up drumming lessons? Should I give away my 97' Sunfire as a symbol of my disrespect for capitalism? Should I shave me head and chant? WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT?

And there isn't any good marketing connected with wearing masks. What kind of message is that suppose to send? I believe in this (whatever the hell it is) but not enough to be identified that I believe in it? Look I'm dressed as a pillow? No, it's so that cameras won't identify them when they commit violent acts during the protest.


You say nobody wants to kill innocent Afghans, but you don't mind if they do get killed, do you? "It's all OSL's fault" absolves us of any blame.

He never said that he didn't mind innocent Afghans being killed, so you've constructed another strawman. Bend over and we'll just stuff this one up your ass with the other one.


But, seeing that they get a rise out of the Right Wing Nazis like you, I may join them next time.

Ok, but I think you'll be walking funny.

Gobear, Nazi, right...

[Jodi]

Yeah, we tried to make GOBEAR a right-wing Nazi, but he kept flicking his wrist at the top of the salute. Ruins the whole thing, really.

[gobear]

Vinston Churchill calleds us Naazis, Naazis. Ve Vasn't Naazis, ve vas Nazis!

Not many people know it, but the Fuhrer was a terrific dancer

Hitler...there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!!

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Jodi
Yeah, we tried to make GOBEAR a right-wing Nazi, but he kept flicking his wrist at the top of the salute. Ruins the whole thing, really.

Well there's that, but have you ever SEEN what a rainbow looks like on a brown shirt? It just doesn't work..

..d&r..

[gobear]

Yeah, but it hadn't been for the Nazis, we wouldn't have the Cabaret original cast soundtrack, and how could any self-respecting gay man get along without Liza Minnelli singing her tits off as Sally Bowles?

[Mandelstam]

gobear "No, it's not asinine at all to want economic justice, but capitalism is the only way to ensure raising of a nation's GDP. Socialism sure has been a roaring failure."

I realize, gobear that these remarks were made in reply to Gazoo's very divisive way of casting the debate. I'd like to point out though that the great majority of people protesting globalization are not socialists nor even, ultimately, anti-globalization. A socialist usually wants to eliminate the ownership of private property by nationalizing or collectivizing it in some fashion. I know of almost no one involved in protesting current globalizing practices who wants that.

Most people protesting globalization want to replace so-called "free trade" with fair trade. In so doing they seek any or all of the following: 1) international laws to secure human rights and environmental protections; 2) the introduction of international labor standards to ensure workplace safety and a living wage; 3) providing workers abroad with the same right to collectively bargain enjoyed by the citizens of advanced industrial nations; 4) introduction of programs in advanced economies to compensate for the loss of high-paying industrial jobs; 5) the publicizing and democratization of unaccountable institutions such as the WTO and IMF who, without the sanction of citizens or governments, legislate on behalf of the entire planet, primarily in the interests of a small numer of multinational corporations.

None of these proposals seek to overturn capitalism; rather they seek to curb its excesses, something that ever since the industrial revolution it's been clear to all reasonable people is necessary to do. Protestors want third-world people to enjoy the same kind of curbs that Americans and Europeans do.

gobear, I believe that if you checked out this movement at its best, you might find that in a number of ways it coincides with the principles you've described as your own in this thread and elsewhere.

John Corrado, I'm not sure where you're heading with your question re Northern Ireland. (I may have missed something on p.2 which I've been skimming intermittently.) But I'd like to point out in advance that the Northern Ireland and Afghanistan are quite different as I'm sure you realize.

Milossarian: "Al Quaida, because they are directly responsible for Sept. 11, will face military wrath. They're going to die. The other groups capable of global terrorism can be squeezed out of existence through a variety of means, and will be easier to spot in their plotting through heightened diligence and intelligence-gathering worldwide. To eliminate the other large-scale terrorist groups will take some doing, and a lot of pressure on allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and United Arab Emirites. They will need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk."[/b]

You know, Milossarian, there are very few people out there who are so pacificist that they wouldn't support the kind of action that, with surgical precision, would eliminate the threat of ObL, Al Quaida, while "squeezing" other groups out of existence. For that matter, I would add to my wish list the replacement of the Taliban by a government that the Afghani people genuinely want. (And while I'm at it I'd like a cure for AIDS, an end to world hunger, and a new zip drive for my computer ;).

It's fine to want all of these things. It's another thing to refuse to recognize that pulling this off exclusively or even primarily through military force--which, on the whole, can't be conducted like a surgical procedure--is a tactical nightmare. That's precisely why our government is, at least for now, waiting and seeing.

You write about pressuring our allies including Saudi Arabia and U.A.E. to walk the walk. What you don't realize is that the governments of these countries do not enjoy popular support. They are corrupt and undemocratic. Did you happen to notice that one of the terrorists was from the U.A.E.? Have you noticed that in Pakistan, where the reigning military dictator has agreed with help the US, pro-fundamentalist Muslims are protesting? What do we gain if Pakistan--a nuclear power with longstanding grievances against India--becomes a fundamentalist country?
I don't say that you are absolutely wrong about everything that you say. I [i]do say that you can't discount the importance of not further exacerbating anti-US hostility. And although you haven't entirely discounted that, you do seem to discount it when you doubt that ObL and his ilk can effectively use US military responses as a way of recruiting allies. Since our immediate concern is terrorist attack at home--rather than the winning of some mother of all wars off of our shores--shouldn't we be trying very hard to discourage this effect?

As you know, I favor an international effort to pursue ObL and co. and bring them to trial. I might also favor police-style military actions if they enjoy international support. I also think the UN should be involved here.

You asked for a link and I'm going to offer you a few that you might find interesting. I'd be very happy to know what you (and others) think of them.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11601

This second one I've already posted in a GD thread on religious implications of the war. As I said there, I think it's well worth reading but IMO a bit overstated.

http://www.TheNation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015&s=johnson

[The Great Gazoo]

Originally posted by Michael Ellis
Originally posted by The Great Gazoo
But, seeing that they get a rise out of the Right Wing Nazis like you, I may join them next time.

*Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!*

I'm sorry, you just lost the argument.

But you did get bonus points for calling a gay man a Nazi. :rolleyes:

Yeah, you're right - a gay man can't be a Nazi - you ever hear of Hermann Goering??? :rolleyes:

[Mandelstam]

gobear, on re-reading I just want to make clear that I know you did say that "sure" you thought legislative protections were good. Again, I do realize that you were replying to Gazoo's divisive post.

[Fionn]

Originally posted by gobear
Yeah, but it hadn't been for the Nazis, we wouldn't have the Cabaret original cast soundtrack, and how could any self-respecting gay man get along without Liza Minnelli singing her tits off as Sally Bowles?

I now have "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" stuck in my head.

[gobear]

On a serious note, i would urge the Great Gazoo and other anti-globalization agitators to read the Globalization survey in this week's Economist. They would see their claims carefully examined and in an evenhanded manner. The survey argues convincingly that many of the remedies proposed by the anti-globalization crowd would severely damage the long-term economic growth of the Third-world nations they wish to help.For example, legislation to enforce higher pay for Third-world labor, backed up by trade barriers to keep out imports from countries that don't comply, would only fatten multinational corpoarate profits and ensure the bankruptcy of locally-owned manufacturers.


The protestors who claim that they are the advocates of freedom should read this on p. 15 of the Survey section.

The idea that citizens are not individuals with different goals and preferences, but an undifferentiated body with agreed common interests, defined in oppositon to other monolithic interests such as "business" or "foreigners", is not just shallow populism, it is proto-fascism.

[The Great Gazoo]

Originally posted by Michael Ellis
Pop quiz: where are your friends and family more likely to be hurt, at their homes in the United States or deployed to Afghanistan and surrounding regions?

Considering that several thousand Americans died in their own country, vs. 0 dead in Afganistan so far, I'd say this question is a complete fucking strawman.

I don't claim to have all the answers.

Then don't claim you know better than everyone else.

Oh, and to whomever was babbling about running with the bulls, that's not an act of courage. It's an act of stupidity.

So is not wiping out Bin Laden and his Holes in the Hills gang before they get their hands on nukes or anthrax.

Zero dead in Afghanistan??? How about 3 million dead in Afghanistan?? Over 10% of their population. A lot of them killed in the CIA's version of "Let's make a deal - you kill Russians, we'll help you set up a puppet government" - too bad it didn't work out?

[Jodi]

Yeah, you're right - a gay man can't be a Nazi - you ever hear of Hermann Goering???

I knew Hermann Goerig. I respected Hermann Goering. And GOBEAR, sir, is no Hermann Goering.

[gobear]

Gobear, on re-reading I just want to make clear that I know you did say that "sure" you thought legislative protections were good.

Yes, I do think that legislative protections are a good idea, but it's vital to ensure that the remedy isn't worse than the disease. As I pointed out, forcing an across-the-board pay rise would only serve to enrich multinationals and impoverish locally-owned businesses.

Gazoo[b], it would help if you knew your Nazis. Herman Goering was not gay. He was famous for having mistresses. Now Ernst Roehm, head of the SA, Hitler's paramilitary street thugs, [b]was gay. However during the Night of the Long Knives in June 1934, he, along with other leaders of the SA, was killed on Hitler's orders. When the Nazis opened the concetration camps for Jews, Communists, Gypsies and other enemies of the Reich, they also include homosexuals, who were incarcerated under Article 175 of the German Penal code. Thousands of gay men and women were killed by the Nazis. Calling me a Nazi only illustrates your ignorance of history, putz!

[John Corrado]

Originally posted by The Great Gazoo
Zero dead in Afghanistan??? How about 3 million dead in Afghanistan?? Over 10% of their population. A lot of them killed in the CIA's version of "Let's make a deal - you kill Russians, we'll help you set up a puppet government" - too bad it didn't work out?


Right. Not like the Soviets invaded the country once the government they were holding up started to fall. Good grief, can't be the *communists* fault; must be those damned, dirty Americans. If they hadn't been such assholes, Afghanistan would never have seen a war.

[Milossarian]

Let's see (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horowitz.html) what a person who helped organize the first campus demonstration against the Vietnam war at UC-Berkeley in 1962 has to say about the current protests.

Mandlestam:
You know, Milossarian, there are very few people out there who are so pacificist that they wouldn't support the kind of action that, with surgical precision, would eliminate the threat of ObL, Al Quaida, while "squeezing" other groups out of existence. For that matter, I would add to my wish list the replacement of the Taliban by a government that the Afghani people genuinely want. (And while I'm at it I'd like a cure for AIDS, an end to world hunger, and a new zip drive for my computer ;).
I take it you see this as idealistic and an impossibility, then. I disagree.

There is a big leap between people with a level of enmity against America and its ways, and highly organized, intelligent, well-funded, comprehensive terrorist networks, training and actively working to do us harm.

Those can be found and dismantled, I believe. And without that level of organization, intelligence and funding, an attack like Sept. 11 will be made much, much more difficult.

Our vigilance will now have to be unceasing to prevent such organizations from sprouting up again. But that's pretty much a given, anyway.
As you know, I favor an international effort to pursue ObL and co. and bring them to trial. I might also favor police-style military actions if they enjoy international support.
The United Nations has given the USA its full endorsement to act in its self-defense. I haven't heard of a nation that hasn't, in fact.

I don't see the Afghans tolerating a government, even a temporary one, that does not consist of their own people and of their own religion. So I question what the UN can do here.

This is the U.S.'s ballgame. Every country on the globe recognizes it, and has professed as much. The U.S. will utilize whatever forces and resources will best accomplish its goals. I don't see that as being the UN, although I do see it involving a coalition.

I might also favor police-style military actions if they enjoy international support. I also think the UN should be involved here.
I also favor military actions where nobody but bad guys get hurt. For that matter, I would add to my wish list the replacement of the Taliban by a government that the Afghani people genuinely want. (And while I'm at it I'd like a cure for AIDS, an end to world hunger, and a new zip drive for my computer. ;))

I don't say that you are absolutely wrong about everything that you say. I do say that you can't discount the importance of not further exacerbating anti-US hostility.
I don't discount it. But given the choice of potentially exacerbating anti-US hostility or allowing the terrorist network that perpetrated numerous attacks against Americans including Sept. 11 to continue, what should the US do?

One is a hypothetical; the other is intolerable.

If people are given information about who we are after and why, and they choose to see us as hostile to their interests, anyway, what does that say? Are the citizens of Afghanistan oppressed by the Taliban, or aren't they? Are Muslims and Muslim nations intolerant of violent radicalism that perverts their religion, or aren't they?

[Mandelstam]

gobear: "The survey argues convincingly that many of the remedies proposed by the anti-globalization crowd would severely damage the long-term economic growth of the Third-world nations they wish to help."

On the whole, I respect The Economist enough not to dismiss their analyses out of hand. But I do want to point out that they are in the business of selling magazines to people who want to hear this perspective.

"For example, legislation to enforce higher pay for Third-world labor, backed up by trade barriers to keep out imports from countries that don't comply, would only fatten multinational corpoarate profits and ensure the bankruptcy of locally-owned manufacturers."

You know what? The very same arguments were made in the nineteenth century when workers in the US and UK fought for a ten hour day, then an eight hour day, the right to collectively bargain, occupational safety, etc. Always these things were going to spell disaster for workers. And yet look what happened: until the current wave of globalization (beginning c. the 1970s), workers in the West enjoyed a very high standard of living.

Does The Economist address the problem at the root of our current and long-term economic woes? That is, the problem of oversupply--caused by the fact that there is a surfeit of cheaply made goods and a deficit of people who can afford to buy them?

In any case, this is a semi-hijack and I've gone far enough. Just wanted to point out that the globalization debate is too important to be ridiculed, and too complex to be cut dead by one article in The Economist.

[from The Economist ]:"The idea that citizens are not individuals with different goals and preferences, but an undifferentiated body with agreed common interests, defined in oppositon to other monolithic interests such as "business" or "foreigners", is not just shallow populism, it is proto-fascism."

gobear, I think many people in the movement are well aware of that a citizens vs. business mentality is uncalled for. Indeed, this is an insult to the intelligence of a movement that includes Nobel Prize-winning economists, university professors, lawyers, writers, human rights activists--i.e., people who are aware that this isn't a question of a one-size fits all. And while, as I've said, I don't usually dismiss The Economist, this rates as one of the most derisive and unhelpful categorizations I've ever read on its pages. Although loosely unified, if the fair trade movement stands for anything, it is democracy, especially for people in non-Western countries. To twist this into "proto-fascism" befits Fox News or the National Review. Indeed, perhaps Rupert's gotten his claws into The Economist without my having caught on?

But thanks for posting it all the same :)

[Mandelstam]

Ah Milossarian, I've already heard your arguments (just as you've already mine). Your belief that a swift, effective and consequence-free war can be waged and won (with the end effect of removing terrorism in toot) is as "hypothetical" as my belief that there are better ways.

You asked for cites and you provided you some.

You won't get your kiss unless you do your homework ;).

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by The Great Gazoo

Yeah, you're right - a gay man can't be a Nazi - you ever hear of Hermann Goering??? :rolleyes:

Goering was pretty aggressively heterosexual. You might be thinking of Ernst Roehm? At any rate, it's irrelevant, because Gobear isn't a Nazi.

[The Great Gazoo]

Originally posted by gobear
On a serious note, i would urge the Great Gazoo and other anti-globalization agitators to read the Globalization survey in this week's Economist. They would see their claims carefully examined and in an evenhanded manner. The survey argues convincingly that many of the remedies proposed by the anti-globalization crowd would severely damage the long-term economic growth of the Third-world nations they wish to help.For example, legislation to enforce higher pay for Third-world labor, backed up by trade barriers to keep out imports from countries that don't comply, would only fatten multinational corpoarate profits and ensure the bankruptcy of locally-owned manufacturers.


The protestors who claim that they are the advocates of freedom should read this on p. 15 of the Survey section.

The idea that citizens are not individuals with different goals and preferences, but an undifferentiated body with agreed common interests, defined in oppositon to other monolithic interests such as "business" or "foreigners", is not just shallow populism, it is proto-fascism.


Gee, I am surpised the Economist doesn't back the protesters :rolleyes: Who are going to quote next, Rush Limbaugh???

[The Great Gazoo]

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
Originally posted by The Great Gazoo

Yeah, you're right - a gay man can't be a Nazi - you ever hear of Hermann Goering??? :rolleyes:

Goering was pretty aggressively heterosexual. You might be thinking of Ernst Roehm? At any rate, it's irrelevant, because Gobear isn't a Nazi.

This is the Hermann Goering who liked young boys, head of the Luftwaffe, second in command to Hitler. Which Hermann Goering are you talking about??

And really like the fact that people in the pit feel that it is so terrible to call somebody a Nazi, and yet, don't seem to mind Fuckhead, which was about the fifth word in the OP. Get over it. To quote someone else, it's a "strawman" argument.

[gobear]

Gee, I am surpised the Economist doesn't back the protesters Who are going to quote next, Rush Limbaugh???

Rush Limbaugh is not an authority on, well, anything. He is a reactionary blowhard. The Economist, on the other hand, is an internationally respected British magazine that covers the news with a great deal of intellectual rigor.

Gazoo, what do you read?

[Jodi]

Actually, GAZOO, as someone who has largely been only an observer in this thread, allow me to tell you in perfect seriousness that around here you will almost invariably be subjected to heaps of scorn for calling someone a Nazi, while Fuckhead will not cause people to turn a hair. That's because many of us recognize the very real distinction between an insult based on historical genocide and one based upon hooking up a naughty word with a random body part.

Just, y'know, FYI.

[The Great Gazoo]

Originally posted by gobear
Gee, I am surpised the Economist doesn't back the protesters Who are going to quote next, Rush Limbaugh???

Rush Limbaugh is not an authority on, well, anything. He is a reactionary blowhard. The Economist, on the other hand, is an internationally respected British magazine that covers the news with a great deal of intellectual rigor.

Gazoo, what do you read?

I read a lot, including the Economist on occasion. In case you missed my point, quoting the Economist's position on someone who is protesting the IMF, capitalism, etc. doesn't impress me. "We love Capitalism" is practically their banner.

[gobear]

This is the Hermann Goering who liked young boys, head of the Luftwaffe, second in command to Hitler. Which Hermann Goering are you talking about??

Dude, Goering wasn't gay. Unless you've got a relevant cite, shut up, you're wrong. Fuckhead is a generic term of abuse; Nazis killed millions of innocent people.

I am not a Nazi, but you are most definitely a fuckhead.

[The Great Gazoo]

Originally posted by gobear

This is the Hermann Goering who liked young boys, head of the Luftwaffe, second in command to Hitler. Which Hermann Goering are you talking about??

Dude, Goering wasn't gay. Unless you've got a relevant cite, shut up, you're wrong. Fuckhead is a generic term of abuse; Nazis killed millions of innocent people.

I am not a Nazi, but you are most definitely a fuckhead.

I see, You get to define the terms. Nazi is a political affiliation that mirrors in many ways your position. I am sorry if you read it that you killed millions.

[The Great Gazoo]

Originally posted by John Corrado
Originally posted by The Great Gazoo
Zero dead in Afghanistan??? How about 3 million dead in Afghanistan?? Over 10% of their population. A lot of them killed in the CIA's version of "Let's make a deal - you kill Russians, we'll help you set up a puppet government" - too bad it didn't work out?


Right. Not like the Soviets invaded the country once the government they were holding up started to fall. Good grief, can't be the *communists* fault; must be those damned, dirty Americans. If they hadn't been such assholes, Afghanistan would never have seen a war.

You are right. I have no great love for the Soviets. But have you noticed that NONE of this is our fault?? It's the Taliban's fault, the Soviet's fault, would have been Pakistan's fault, except that they caved. We are always justified, no one else is. We have seen too many Rambo movies.

[The Great Gazoo]

Just to get this back on the OP, I take back the Nazi comment, you Right Wing Motherfucker :D

[VarlosZ]

Originally posted by Milossarian
Varlos -

Whatever problems I might have with the federal government's level of preparedness and intelligence-gathering leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks, I'd say its response since, from the president on down to individual FBI agents, has been pretty close to perfect.
To the extent that we know what they're doing, I'd agree.

And I recognize the absolute need for a military component to [our response], particularly for governments that were complicit in slaughtering about 6,000 of our civilians, in civilian targets, on American soil, in a time of peace.
How do you know that it's an "absolute need"?

What's the standard, dictionary definition for "unequivocal?" Clear. Unambiguous. Unquestionable. Not bogged down with provisos.
Why does the horror of 9/11 necessitate a straight-forward response? While the issue facing us is rather unambiguous ("How do we stop terrorism?"), the solution is not so simple.

I don't think "unequivocal" modifies "response" very well in this instance, as I'm still not entirely certain of what you meant. Realistically, what would an unequivocal response be? And an equivocal response? Surely you can find a better adjective.

The people that did this want nothing more than to kill and maim Americans . . . And we also know that there is no action we can take that will magically make them stop wanting us dead as their goal.
We don't know that. In fact, I personally believe that if we were to withdraw our support for Israel, lift all sanctions on Iraq, recognize the Taliban, and withdraw all U.S. military forces from the region (am I forgetting any?), the terror attacks from Muslim extremists would stop. I'm not advocating this, but let's remember that our adversaries are not simgle-minded killing machines. They have goals.

So ... explain to me again why we should not simply evaluate the possibilities of a nonviolent solution, see that they are clearly not usable here, and turn the page?
Because I don't see them as "clearly not usable" any more than I see military solutions as clearly effective. I have yet to hear a plan for military action that is both realistically achievable and likely to accomplish more good than harm. Do you have one?

Reading diligently through this thread to try to find dropzone's proposed solutions. . .
Page 2, about a third of the way down, dropzone said:

So, in a nutshell, my solution is to support what the US government is doing, expand it in concert with the UN, especially with other Mid East governments so the "It's a War Against Islam!" nuts can't get a foothold, and work for peace. The humanitarian aid being sent for the refugees is a start and should be expanded.
I was going to suggest that you missed it, but you quoted it yourself. As it is explicitly labeled as his solution, what was os hard about finding it? It may be a little vague, but it sounds very reasonable to me. Make it a true international effort, not a U.S. crusade. Treat it as a hunt for criminals, not a war.

I don't know of anyone that is advocating stopping terrorism through "total war." I know a lot of people are advocating stopping terrorism through a comprehensive approach that includes a military component.
Yes, but to be fair I've heard no one say that any military action at all is unacceptable (I'm sure some believe that, but it's an incredibly rare opinion). If we could effectively wipe out ObL's terrorism network (as well as ObL himself) through a military strike with no collateral damage and no serious political consequences, only the truly batty would still be opposed. Since it's not that easy, there's going to be lots of disagreement about the size and nature of your "military component."

So I ask, what leads you to believe that all other avenues aren't being utilized, and unworkable ones discarded?
I do not hold, nor have I implied that I hold, any such belief. I believe that the administration is putting lots of thought and effort into non-military solutions. I fear that they will not find one that is to their liking and will embark on a wholly destructive (for everybody involved) and ineffective campaign of military attacks.

The base dishonesty of [dropzone's] position is in the idea that people with that view are willing to move on to other effective solutions if peace is proven not workable. Some are; some aren't.
The problem is that you'd never be able to determine when someone is being "dishonest." You apparently believe that peace has already been proven unworkable, whereas those arguing for peace do not (hence the original disagreement). It likely has nothing to do with dishonesty.

dropzone also said this:
I even believe in a certain amount of retaliation. . .
Which indicates he agrees with my take on the response.
Not necessarily. I'd bet that his "amount of retaliation" is different than yours, perhaps enormously so.

I have heard a lot about how eradicating the al Qaida network, and Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, will not work, and won't be a solution. As other pissed off radical Muslims will just take their places.

Cite?
Don't forget that you don't have a cite (for the opinion that military strikes will work) either. It's conjecture on all sides.

Personally, I would be glad to eradicate the groups mentioned above. My primary objection to military strikes (and the objection of most of my ilk, I would imagine) is that I don't think military strikes can wipe them out. Destroying underground, stealthy, and highly mobile
organizations is very difficult to do with an F-18. Putting troops on the ground seems an even worse solution.

Al Quaida, because they are directly responsible for Sept. 11, will face military wrath. They're going to die. The other groups capable of global terrorism can be squeezed out of existence through a variety of means. . .
I hope so, but I hardly think it's a given (and I'm not even sure that it's possible).

I guess your only problem with me, then, is my lack of tolerance of unworkable solutions.
Was this directed at me or dz? In any event, you have not shown non-violent solutions to be unworkable, nor have you shown military strikes to be effective.

Yes, we (you, me, dz, and others) are in agreement that we should proceed with a multi-faceted approach and that some sort of military response is appropriate. I think we disagree over where to draw the line militarily. In this case, questions of scale are rather important.

I have no time to proof-read; please forgive any typos.

[Mandelstam]

Originally posted by The Great Gazoo
Just to get this back on the OP, I take back the Nazi comment, you Right Wing Motherfucker :D

Gazoo[/i], what do you gain by labelling [b]gobear "right wing"? It's clear that's not how he sees himself; at worst he's an economic conservative with (IMO) a need to learn more about the effects of US foreign policy. The same could be said about a huge swath of Clinton/Gore supporters.
It's fine do indulge in a bit of name-calling in a Pit thread. But let's do it with some savvy, shall we?

Varlos, I enjoyed reading your response to Milo.

[The Great Gazoo]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
Originally posted by The Great Gazoo
[B]Just to get this back on the OP, I take back the Nazi comment, you Right Wing Motherfucker :D

Gazoo[/i], what do you gain by labelling gobear "right wing"? It's clear that's not how he sees himself; at worst he's an economic conservative with (IMO) a need to learn more about the effects of US foreign policy. The same could be said about a huge swath of Clinton/Gore supporters.
It's fine do indulge in a bit of name-calling in a Pit thread. But let's do it with some savvy, shall we?

Varlos, I enjoyed reading your response to Milo.

Oh, brother! I give up. He is hawkish, he calls protesters Anarchists and hippies, he cites the Economist, I am sure I am missing some, and just because he's gay, he's not Right Wing? I hope you're not stereotyping, because I wasn't trying to. I am basing it on his posts. Let's just put a skirt on him and call him 'pudding' from now on.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
Varlos, I enjoyed reading your response to Milo.

As did I, very much.

VarlosZ, you have done an excellent job of summing up exactly how the two sides are talking past one another.

Specifics from both sides would be extremely helpful at this point.

[Mandelstam]

Gazoo: "Oh, brother! I give up. He is hawkish, he calls protesters Anarchists and hippies, he cites the Economist, I am sure I am missing some, and just because he's gay, he's not Right Wing? I hope you're not stereotyping, because I wasn't trying to.

Hell no! Some of my favorite enemies are gay neo-cons ;).

No, my point is, right now about 60% of the country is in a hawkish frame of mind (but much ground has been gained). And the media has been feeding people the idea that protesters are anarchists and hippies so we can't demonize everyone who buys into it. And The Economist, is not what I'd call "right-wing"; more like moderate conservative. More importantly, you'll often read the same kind of drivel from columnists in The New York Times and is that "right-wing"?

As dropzone noted early in this thread, 9/11 seems to have brought out something in gobear that I don't particularly warm to either. I wish he'd get back in touch with his inner goteddy ;). But I still don't see the point in lumping him in as part of an undifferentiated "right wing". If we do that then we turn most of the people in this country into a huge indistinguishable and irreclaimable rightwing monolith that we can only shout at and never reason with.

I skimmed most of p.2 so maybe you were provoked. Believe me, I appreciate your spirit. And I don't criticize your netiquette as I'm well aware that this is the BBQ pit. But I do think that when you call people like gobear "Nazi" or even "rightwing"--people who perceive themselves as moderate and even progressive on some issues--that you only harden the impression that we're all a lot Starbucks-smashing nutters with black masks.

[Milossarian]

I don't really know how to get much more specific than I did in my post. Do you want me to get down to what troops do what, where? OK. Tracking down Osama and the gang in Afghanistan will largely be done by special forces, working with the Northern Alliance, with some level of helicopter and other air support.

Whether the Taliban troops react with fury in large numbers, or start surrendering to CNN camera crews like the Iraqi troops did at the end of the Gulf War, will go a long way to determining how the war escalates from there, if at all. We are seeing signs that people on the street and even Afghan soldiers don't love and admire their government, so I wouldn't be surprised if the reaction is closer to the latter than the former.

This military operation will commence in earnest within the next week or so, because it would behoove the U.S. to act before the weather turns to shit in the mountains of Afghanistan, and before the very holy Muslim period of Ramadan.

The other terrorist groups are going to be handled largely through the intelligence and law enforcement realms. With heavy reliance upon our friends in that part of the world to prove their friendship, in a number of ways I discussed in my previous post. There may be occasional air strikes or quick attacks with small groups of elite forces here and there, I would suspect from what I've been reading.

A real wild card in this is Iraq. If it's determined that Saddam Hussein had a hand in Sept. 11 (which may have already been determined, but not announced for military reasons), I think a lot of people may soon be surprised by the scale of attack that occurs there.
How do you know that it's an "absolute need"?
<snip>
Why does the horror of 9/11 necessitate a straight-forward response? While the issue facing us is rather unambiguous ("How do we stop terrorism?"), the solution is not so simple.
The solution to stopping terrorism long-term isn't simple.

Where we seem to most disagree is, you apparently don't see a need for the United States to respond in a way to the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, that sends a message throughout the radical, American-hating, fundamentalist Islamic world. A message that causes them to shudder when they later recall the level of retribution one gets for attacking innocent Americans on American soil in such a way.

I think you and others see that as ego- and/or vengeance-driven, reactionary, mean, etc. I (and a few others) see that as highly necessary. A particularly ruthless message needs to also be sent for those we have implicated. They aren't going to be swayed by our humanitarian efforts.
We don't know that. In fact, I personally believe that if we were to withdraw our support for Israel, lift all sanctions on Iraq, recognize the Taliban, and withdraw all U.S. military forces from the region (am I forgetting any?), the terror attacks from Muslim extremists would stop. I'm not advocating this, but let's remember that our adversaries are not simgle-minded killing machines. They have goals.
And I completely disagree. As I've stated previously, I believe their goal is to hit us with incomprehensible tragedy after incomprehensible tragedy, until we feel forced to respond in an overwhelming way militarily. Because they want a jihad that rallies all of Islam, and they hope to be the leaders of the New Islamic Order. With a side order of wiping Israel off the map.
Because I don't see them (nonviolent alternatives) as "clearly not usable" any more than I see military solutions as clearly effective.
Guess I don't have anything more to say on this subject. We disagree. I see nonviolence in the face of al Qaida as even worse than nonviolence in the face of Nazism.
Don't forget that you don't have a cite (for the opinion that military strikes will work) either. It's conjecture on all sides.
Like the death penalty debate; it's clearly debatable whether executing a murderer prevents other murders. It's not debatable whether it prevents other murders by that murderer, however.
Personally, I would be glad to eradicate the groups mentioned above. My primary objection to military strikes (and the objection of most of my ilk, I would imagine) is that I don't think military strikes can wipe them out. Destroying underground, stealthy, and highly mobile
organizations is very difficult to do with an F-18. Putting troops on the ground seems an even worse solution.
I have full faith that there are enough Vietnam vets in the loop on the military aspect to assure that we don't try to put our square peg military desires into a round hole of what we have to work with logistically in Afghanistan.
Yes, we (you, me, dz, and others) are in agreement that we should proceed with a multi-faceted approach and that some sort of military response is appropriate. I think we disagree over where to draw the line militarily. In this case, questions of scale are rather important.
I agree.

Mandlestam - I'll read your links when I get time, promise. Keep those lips far, far away from me, though.

['Uigi]

Did anyone else notice (USA Today?) that there haven't been any flags of the United States burned in Berkley?

Now that's interesting.

p.s. I have to wonder where the little-peter-headed-protesting-cock-knockers-in-Washington, DC intend to FIND gas for their cars (even if they're be able to afford the stuff) if they continue their moronic jabber-babble-poster-waving crap.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by The Great Gazoo

This is the Hermann Goering who liked young boys, head of the Luftwaffe, second in command to Hitler. Which Hermann Goering are you talking about??

And really like the fact that people in the pit feel that it is so terrible to call somebody a Nazi, and yet, don't seem to mind Fuckhead, which was about the fifth word in the OP. Get over it. To quote someone else, it's a "strawman" argument.

Cite? I've never heard that about Goering and I'm curious.

Back to this, though, can you honestly not tell the difference between "Nazi" and "fuckhead", or the connotations that "Nazi" has that "fuckhead" doesn't? I mean, come on. Use your head.

[Otto]

ProtesilausWhich was my whole point. You know, how someone can think they're doing something courageous when taking a little time to think rationally would reveal how monumentally stupid and potentially dangerous their actions really are.

"Wanting for people not to fight wars" is in no way quantitatively or qualitatively similar to "getting chased through down the street by bulls."

gobearOtto, go away.

Make me.

You are babbling to yourself,

And yet you keep responding.

I have not lied once in this thread, or ever.

You lied when you said that I offered or wanted to offer "aid and comfort" to the people who perpetrated or planned these attacks. Although I suppose it is possible in that mass of wadded up toilet paper that passes as your brain that "let's not have a war" is the same as "let's go fellate Osama bin Laden, wonderful guy that he is," but one would hope that those whose brains actually function would see there's a difference. but I think the most likely explanation is that you lied and you don't have the stones to 'fess up to it.

Your attack on firefighters in NYC showed us where your sympathies are, and that's not with the United States.

I can't believe how amazingly unsmart you are.

All your posts have done is to show that you are the anti-US, anti-capitalism, hurrah for the enemies of the US type who sashayed down the streets of DC this past weekend.

Another lie, in fact a whole series of lies right in a row. Too bad you're not capable of feeling shame. So much for your "I respect the right of others to disagree with me" bullshit.

Good question. We all live and work here in the Metro DC area; some of my friends are posted to the Pentagon.

No, sorry, the answer is, they're safer at home than in the middle of a combat zone.

If you have no answers, then why are you posting?

First it was because I wanted to make fun of you for your hypocrisy in attacking me for speaking out in one instance while then launching your own attack. Then it was actually to defend you from an attack someone else posted. Now, though, it's because you're a lying little bastard.

Besides, we're not at war, putz.

We're not? Someone had better inform the President and CNN immediately. They both talk a lot about "America's new war."

Did we immediately retaliate against the Afghans,or have we worked through diplomatic channels and worked on building international consensus for a response to OBL? I thought that you would applaud Bush's restraint. Isn't a peaceful, diplomatic response what you wanted?

I don't recall this thread being about the administration's response to the attacks. I thought it was about you shitting on people exercising their constitutional rights.

It's been three weeks since the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, and therehas not been ANY military response yet. no bombings, no reprisals, nothing. So why are you so unhappy?

Who said I was unhappy?

and no, I did not want gay folks to "rev up the killin'" but to demonstrate loyalty to the US and to the president, even if he is a Republican.

Loyalty under threat is not loyalty. There was a story in the paper the other day about a gentleman who received death threats because he wasn't flying his flag at half staff. Turns out his flag pole was of the telescopic variety. His choices were either fly the flag at full staff or not fly it at all, and this loyal American hose to fly it. he did not know about the provision of the flag code calling for a black ribbon to fly with the flag. Neither did the "loyal" Americans who threatened his life every day for not flying it at half staff.

Given the choice between that kind of loyalty and your kind of "loyalty," I'll choose the former.

Additionally, "dissent" does not equal "disloyalty." The Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed some time ago.

If the US does nothing and lets OBL go free, as Otto and his kind want

And here we have yet another lie told by the blindly enraged gobear.

Oh, and another thing:

In addition,
1) Show your faces. Wearing black masks and bandannas makes you look dangerous and untrustworthy. If your cause is just, why do you hide?

I can't speak for everyone who wears a mask, but at least some of the demonstrators go masked because the police and feds have developed a nasty habit of charging even peaceful protestors under RICO conspiracy theories. You're a proper little assimilationist faggot so you must subscribe to Out. read Patricia Neil Warren's article in the latest issue.

Michael EllisConsidering that several thousand Americans died in their own country, vs. 0 dead in Afganistan so far, I'd say this question is a complete fucking strawman.

Considering that 6,000 dead in aggression on United States soil, while undeniably tragic, is peanuts compared to the numbers killed by US-backed regimes throughout the world. Also considering that despite this tragedy the statistical likelihood of being killed by a terrorist on US soil is still far lower that the likelihood of a soldier's being killed in a combat zone, and there's not a bit of straw to be found.

MiloLet's see what a person who helped organize the first campus demonstration against the Vietnam war at UC-Berkeley in 1962 has to say about the current protests.

Gee, David Horowitz wants to curtail civil liberties. Maybe he'll stop whining now about the college papers who refuse to run his silly anti-reparations ad.

'Uigip.s. I have to wonder where the little-peter-headed-protesting-cock-knockers-in-Washington, DC intend to FIND gas for their cars (even if they're be able to afford the stuff) if they continue their moronic jabber-babble-poster-waving crap.

Actually, gas prices in Wisconsin have fallen by more than a quarter a gallon since the attack.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by The Great Gazoo
hear of Hermann Goering??? :rolleyes:

Cite?

:rolleyes:

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by Otto
Make me.

Ouch! That hurt!

:rolleyes:

This isn't second grade, waffle nuts.

We're not? Someone had better inform the President and CNN immediately. They both talk a lot about "America's new war."

And this proves...

I don't recall this thread being about the administration's response to the attacks. I thought it was about you shitting on people exercising their constitutional rights.

Hey, "Shit on the Protestors from a 3rd Story Window" is my favorite game!

Who said I was unhappy?

I do. You're unhappy because we all don't see the world through your LSD-spiked rose-tinted bifocals.

Loyalty under threat is not loyalty.

Who's threatening anyone, spinach shit?

Considering that 6,000 dead in aggression on United States soil, while undeniably tragic, is peanuts compared to the numbers killed by US-backed regimes throughout the world.

So that makes it okey-doky, then?

:rolleyes:

Also considering that despite this tragedy the statistical likelihood of being killed by a terrorist on US soil is still far lower that the likelihood of a soldier's being killed in a combat zone, and there's not a bit of straw to be found.

Statistics: The Last Resort of a Sick Fucker.

[Broomstick]

Originally posted by VarlosZ
Originally posted by Milossarian
[quote]The people that did this want nothing more than to kill and maim Americans . . . And we also know that there is no action we can take that will magically make them stop wanting us dead as their goal.

We don't know that. In fact, I personally believe that if we were to withdraw our support for Israel, lift all sanctions on Iraq, recognize the Taliban, and withdraw all U.S. military forces from the region (am I forgetting any?), the terror attacks from Muslim extremists would stop. I'm not advocating this, but let's remember that our adversaries are not simgle-minded killing machines. They have goals.

In fact, I personally believe that a statement such as yours is opinion of ethnocentric pollyanna.

If we actually did do all of the above - withdraw from the Middle East in all ways, lift sanctions, etc. - all it would do is egg these guys on. Why? Because if we cave instead of resist it means we're weak and easily manipulated. So they'll have new demands, and if we don't give in to those new demands then they'll kill more of us.

Immediately after 9/11 they waited for the bombs to fall, ready to protest their innocence and accuse us of being the bully. Now, since we didn't not fly off the cuff, they're basically going "nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah" saying we're not brave enough to confront them.

These people certainly do think, but they do not think like us. They are absolutely convinced that they have built utopia in Afganistan and now want to bring utopia to the rest of the world. Since all other ideas are wrong, they must be eliminated by any means necessary. Do YOU want to live like the people of Kabul?

Personally, I don't think the Taliban and bin Laden give a flying fuck about other Muslims, the Middle East, or anything other than their own power. It's just an excuse to kill people, and if you took it away they'd find another reason to kill.

[elucidator]

There is nothing historicly to indicate that Hermann Goering was homosexual. Ernst Roem was as queer as a blue horse, and no mistake. He seems to have been one of that truly wierd sort of guy, like Ray Cohn (who, one can only hope, is simmering in Hell close by Nixon): hyper-masculine homosexuals who somehow believe that if they are the active participant rather then the passive participant, he isn't queer, its the other guy. (I'm not going into details, if you need an explanation, I'm sure you can get a volunteer. Frankly, the whole idea creeps me out, but it ain't no never mind)

Goering was a fat, Nazi morphine addict. But he wasn't gay.

[VarlosZ]

Milo,
Thanks for the details on your military plan; yes, that's what I was looking for. It's the first of its kind I've seen on this board and is, I think, likely to be put into action IRL.

As you probably expected, it's not the solution I would propose. I could go line by line raising my objections, but neither of us would enjoy it and I'm sure you can imagine what they would be. Basically, I think that we wouldn't be able to get all or even most of Al Quaida, and that the risks to life and to political stability are therefore too great to be justified.

Where we seem to most disagree is, you apparently don't see a need for the United States to respond in a way to the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, that sends a message throughout the radical, American-hating, fundamentalist Islamic world. A message that causes them to shudder when they later recall the level of retribution one gets for attacking innocent Americans on American soil in such a way.
This is correct, I see no need for such a message. As was mentioned earlier by another poster (sorry, but I'm not going to re-read the whole thread so I can give credit), shocking your opponent into submission through a massive military strike has never proven effective. Though I can't think of any instance in which it has worked, I can think of at least a couple in which it has not. The previous poster mentioned the blitz. I think a better example would be the Allied attacks on Germany. We destroyed urban Germany about as thoroughly as we possibly could have, yet we still had to fight until Germany's military situation was beyond hopeless. Likewise Pearl Harbor, far from discouraging the American populace, was a rallying cry that ensured we would never accept Japanese control of South East Asia. (I believe the only way this message could work -- the only way it ever has worked -- is if it it were delivered with nuclear weapons).

I think that your message, if sent with enough force, would only drive thousands of peaceful Islamic fundamentalists to become violent Islamic fundamentalists. I think it would be counter-productive.

I think you and others see that as ego- and/or vengeance-driven, reactionary, mean, etc.
I think some people are seeking vengeance. I have no problem believing that you and others see it as an unfortunate practical necessity.

They aren't going to be swayed by our humanitarian efforts.
Right, but neither will they be swayed by cruise missiles, and, like I said, I doubt we could even get most of them.

Like the death penalty debate; it's clearly debatable whether executing a murderer prevents other murders. It's not debatable whether it prevents other murders by that murderer, however.
Right, but in the case of the death penalty there isn't the possibility that we'll fail to kill the inmate. Nor is there the possibility (generally speaking) that a given execution will spark a wave of retaliatory murders. Those are both distinct possibilities in this case.

I have full faith that there are enough Vietnam vets in the loop on the military aspect to assure that we don't try to put our square peg military desires into a round hole of what we have to work with logistically in Afghanistan.
I agree that we're not going to get invovled in a meat-grinder situation in Afghanistan. What worries me is an expansion of the conflict (Iraq, as you said, is a wildcard), especially given that there are at least four nuclear powers in the vicinity (Russia, Pakistan, India, and China) -- five if you count us. What's worse: none of them like each other very much.


-- Jer

[Fenris]

Originally posted by gobear
Yeah, but it hadn't been for the Nazis, we wouldn't have the Cabaret original cast soundtrack, and how could any self-respecting gay man get along without Liza Minnelli singing her tits off as Sally Bowles?

Two vaguely snotty comments, because I'm in a snotty mood, not because of Gobear at all. :D

A) No such thing as an "orignal cast soundtrack". You can have an "original cast album" or a soundtrack, but not both. See about, oh...ten billion posts (give or take a billion) in rec.arts.theatre.musicals for further info.

B) Liza was pretty good...as a matter of fact...TOO good. I never bought that she'd be working in a dive like the Kit-Kat Klub(sp). I prefer Jill Haworth from the Original Broadway cast. Besides, her "Don't Tell Momma" and "Perfectly Marvelous" are...well, perfectly marvelous and human in a way that the over-perfect tones of Ms Minnelli can't approach.




C'mon. What's wrong with a theater hijack. Aren't you people sick of politics already? :)

Fenris

[John Corrado]

Originally posted by Otto
Besides, we're not at war, putz.

We're not? Someone had better inform the President and CNN immediately. They both talk a lot about "America's new war."


Ah, yes. I remember those salad days, summer of '64, when President Johnson announced our "War on Poverty". I remember seeing the F-14s flying through the air, conducting their strafing missions on Watts to the cheers of Los Angeleans nearby. The B-1s carpet-bombing Harlem; the Agent Orange released all across Mississippi and Alabama. The guerilla warfare in West Virginia was alarming to all who heard about it, but all the reports from the advance into Capitol Heights, Maryland were good.


Oh, and Mandelstam- in response to your earlier question, which I missed (my apologies): dropzone had stated that the best way to eliminate terrorism was to bring wealth to the Middle East- when an area has a burgeoning middle class, he postulated, it is far less likely to indulge in warfare or terrorism, as there is more to be lost. I felt his postulate was incorrect, and brought up Northern Ireland to show such; if Northern Ireland *is* in fact extremely impoverished, I shall withdraw that particular objection, but my understanding is that N.I. is generally prosperous- or at least, as prosperous as the rest of Britain. If *that* is the case, then bringing prosperity to the impoverished of the Middle East won't stop terrorism.

[gobear]

Otto, you said

You lied when you said that I offered or wanted to offer "aid and comfort" to the people who perpetrated or planned these attacks


but here you said

Considering that 6,000 dead in aggression on United States soil, while undeniably tragic, is peanuts compared to the numbers killed by US-backed regimes throughout the world

This combined with your trashing of the firemen in NYC, leads me to believe that my assessment of you is correct.
Having a low opinion of you in neither a lie nor the truth. It is an opinion, not fact.

Get this straight: You are right that dissent is not disloyalty. You will notice that I haven't trashed Dropzone or Mandelstam, despite their being in the peace camp. That's because they have shown that they really are concerned about the welfare of America and the Afghans. They and I just have differences of opinion.

I think you're disloyal because your posts have come just this close to saying "America deserved it" without actually crossing the line. I think you're disloyal because you blithely dismissed the deaths of your countrymen. I think you're disloyal because you showed contempt for the brave men and women who labored to save people at the WTC.


I thought it was about you shitting on people exercising their constitutional rights.

We are both exercising our constitutional rights, dumbshit. And you're right, loyalty under threat is no loyalty at all. but you're not being threatened! Show one threat that anyone has made to you in this thread.

You are the liar, Otto, not I.

Dropzone and Mandelstam, I want to get my inner goteddy back too, but it's really hard right now.

[Monty]

Actually, there is a chance that the government will fail to kill the inmate. Ever hear of last minute stays?

[dropzone]

Originally posted by gobear
Dropzone and Mandelstam, I want to get my inner goteddy back too, but it's really hard right now. Well, there's little wonder! I go away for a while and come back and the damned thread is about GAY NAZIS! And to think I was upbraided for being off topic!

Has anybody noticed that Pollyanna has been mentioned at least twice in this thread? Have any of you actually read the book or seen the movie? What did I ever see in Haley Mills?

[dropzone]

BTW, bro, this thread has been going nowhere for pages. In order to find your inner goteddy I suggest ending the fight with Otto by walking away from it. Punch a wall. Get some friends together, go to a straight bar, and bash some breeders. ;) Continuing an endless fight isn't good for your heart.

[King Rat]

gobear check this out. Yay New York. However the rain may have had something to do with it. http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/5424.htm

[Una Persson]

I found this quote disturbing on several levels:

Washington Metropolitan Officer Ben Mannes, who patrolled the weekend demonstrations, told The Post police fortified a Starbucks yesterday amid reports protesters would target the store.

Police believe the S11 Coalition, which has been responsible for violent protests in Seattle and Italy in recent years, is attempting to hijack peaceful protests.

Mannes said about a thousand anti-globalization protesters, some armed with steel batons, tried to race ahead of police during one march on Saturday to damage cars.

"These guys are professional protesters who have training camps and basically tour the world on mommy and daddy's money trying to cause disruptions," he said.

Armed with steel batons? Interesting. Why?

[Mandelstam]

Milossarian ,"Where we seem to most disagree is, you apparently don't see a need for the United States to respond in a way to the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, that sends a message throughout the radical, American-hating, fundamentalist Islamic world. A message that causes them to shudder when they later recall the level of retribution one gets for attacking innocent Americans on American soil in such a way"

Just one question Milo, a message that causes who to shudder? Do you think Saddam Hussein was shuddering during the Gulf War bombardment? Do you think that the Taliban and bin Laden are shuddering now? What makes you think that people fanatical enough to kill themselves to cause indiscriminate mass destruction are likely to "shudder" because you destroy their neighbors? What have such people got to lose?

Once again, I'm not necessarily against the use of force on a limited scale. But I'm perplexed by a certain ambivalence in your views. On the one hand, you describe a limited "special force" attack--presumably to attempt a surgical hit on key players. Fair enough (though I wonder how tenable it is given everything I've read on the subject). On the other you talk about a punitive and deterrent "level of retribution." Somehow this doesn't add up for me.

But I'm actually more interested in what you think about the links, so I look forward to it.

Broomstick: "Because if we cave instead of resist it means we're weak and easily manipulated."

Again, this crude psychologizing seems utterly groundless to me. What danger is there that the United States, the richest and most powerful nation on earth, is likely to be perceived as "weak and easily manipulated" by small Middle Eastern nations? What you don't seem to understand is that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. You're acting as though the terrorists were a surly high school teenagers who need to learn that we're "tough on crime." Remember, no one in this thread is advocating a total "cave-in."

gobear, good luck. I'd offer you a virtual hug but Milossarian might get jealous. <ducks>

[panzermanpanzerman]

<<<What makes you think that people fanatical enough to kill themselves to cause indiscriminate mass destruction are likely to "shudder" because you destroy their neighbors?>>>

What makes you think that the individuals who comprise the power structure of the Taliban are necessarily fanatical enough to kill themselves?

<< What have such people got to lose? >>

Quite a bit. They are alive, well fed, and in power.

[waterj2]

What makes you think that people fanatical enough to kill themselves to cause indiscriminate mass destruction are likely to "shudder" because you destroy their neighbors?
I think the idea is that so far, neither Saddam Hussein nor Osama bin Laden have actually been willing to kill themselves. Witness the fact that when the shit hits the fan, they both go into hiding.

Not that I advocate killing any innocent Afghans (although I would strongly oppose inaction solely to protect them), but I do think that a cold, ruthless, campaign of terror approaching either of them would indeed make them shudder. Not a morally acceptable way of making them shudder, but an effective one.

[Miller]

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
Originally posted by The Great Gazoo

This is the Hermann Goering who liked young boys, head of the Luftwaffe, second in command to Hitler. Which Hermann Goering are you talking about??


Cite? I've never heard that about Goering and I'm curious.


You've never heard that Hermann Goering was head of the Luftwaffe?




Sorry, but I thought this thread really needed a joke about now.

[pldennison]

Originally posted by Milossarian
Let's see (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horowitz.html) what a person who helped organize the first campus demonstration against the Vietnam war at UC-Berkeley in 1962 has to say about the current protests.

Ugh. Milo, the terrorist attacks have probably resulted in us seeing eye-to-eye more so than on any topic ever, but if David Horowitz told me I was on fire, I'd want a second opinion. He is so fundamentally dishonest, I consider him to be simply untrustworthy.

[Mandelstam]

waterj2: "I think the idea is that so far, neither Saddam Hussein nor Osama bin Laden have actually been willing to kill themselves. Witness the fact that when the shit hits the fan, they both go into hiding."

No doubt these two egomaniacs want to live and think they have nine lives; but you can't expect to end the threat of terrorism by driving either into hiding. Both seem to love the idea of flaunting their bravado before the world at large more than they fear capture or death. Nor can you believe that terorism will stop if ObL is either killed in a military action, or extradited, tried and punished. Someone else will assume his place--some other guy whose name we'll all learn how to pronounce.

Believe me, I wish that this were a problem that could be solved by one small tactical effort by military heroes from the US or anywhere else. But this is not a Hollywood movie.

John: I'm by no means the best authority on these boards on Ireland. But Ireland as a whole was in the 70s, 80s and most of the 90s pretty economically screwed with, IIRR, an unemployment rate of as high as 50%. Much worse off than most of Britain. Northern Ireland was worse off than Southern. Quite recently Ireland's had a kind of economic boom since their entry to the EC; I don't honestly know the extent to which that's been spread through North as well as South. My point though about the difference was this: Ireland is a place scarred and divided by a history of a privileged minority dominating a less-privileged majority. In that kind of situation prosperity can be tricky if it's not distributed the right way. But that's not the problem in Afghanistan.

[Otto]

Michael EllisThis isn't second grade, waffle nuts.

I responded to "go away" at the same level as "go away." Strange how one warrants eye-rolling and the other doesn't. Jagoff.

And this proves...

That gobear and others use the war metaphor when it suits their purposes and recant it when it doesn't.

You're unhappy because we all don't see the world through your LSD-spiked rose-tinted bifocals.

I've never taken LSD, my tinted glasses are regular old sunglass tint and my vivion uncorrected is 20/15.

Who's threatening anyone, spinach shit?

As I noted immediately after the line of mine you quoted, a number of people made threats against the flag-flying gentleman here in Madison. Rep. Barbara Lee has been and may still be under police protection subsequent to the death threats she has received for voting against the use-of-force resolution. I'd say killing someone who "looks Arab" qualifies as a "threat" as well, and at least one such person is now dead.

So that makes it okey-doky, then?

Did I say that US-sponsired deaths justify American deaths? No. I said that in spite of the tragic deaths at WTC and the Pentagon, the chances of an American soldier being killed on deployment to a combat zone dwarfs his or her chance of dying in his or her own home.

Statistics: The Last Resort of a Sick Fucker.

Ignoring the truth: the first resort of the irredeemably stupid.

elucidatorRay Cohn

Roy. FYI.

FenrisB) Liza was pretty good...as a matter of fact...TOO good. I never bought that she'd be working in a dive like the Kit-Kat Klub(sp).

That was the thinking in the recent revival, which is why the role went to people like Natasha Richardson whose singing, being charitable, is not great.

John CorradoAh, yes. I remember those salad days, summer of '64, when President Johnson announced our "War on Poverty". I remember seeing the F-14s flying through the air, conducting their strafing missions on Watts to the cheers of Los Angeleans nearby. The B-1s carpet-bombing Harlem; the Agent Orange released all across Mississippi and Alabama. The guerilla warfare in West Virginia was alarming to all who heard about it, but all the reports from the advance into Capitol Heights, Maryland were good.

I take it that you either don't understand or choose to ignore the qualitative difference between the rhetoric of the "war on poverty" and the current situation.

gobearThis combined with your trashing of the firemen in NYC, leads me to believe that my assessment of you is correct.

No. Uhn uh. You specifically stated that I wish to give "aid and comfort" to the enemy. Either post a quote from me where I said any such thing or admit you're a damn liar.

I think you're disloyal because your posts have come just this close to saying "America deserved it" without actually crossing the line. I think you're disloyal because you blithely dismissed the deaths of your countrymen. I think you're disloyal because you showed contempt for the brave men and women who labored to save people at the WTC.

And I think you're a worthless piece of garbage who can't pull his head out of his fat ass long enough to figure it out. Dismissed the deaths of my countrymen? First off, you've just dismissed the deaths of the women. Secondly, if I blithely dismissed anyone's death, would I be in here and IRL demonstrating against blithely sending more of my "countrymen" off to their deaths? No, if I didn't care, I wouldn't speak up.

Get this now and get it right. Nobody deserves to be murdered. Is that clear enough for you, you dumbshit fatherfucker?

And you're right, loyalty under threat is no loyalty at all. but you're not being threatened! Show one threat that anyone has made to you in this thread.

Oh, are we limiting it to this thread now? Funny how when you want to trash me you feel free to hark back to another thread, but then when I mention threats it's suddenly limited to this one. Hypocrite.

You are the liar, Otto, not I.

I've already posted a series of your pernicious lies. Strange how you've been unable to post a single one of mine.

Dropzone and Mandelstam, I want to get my inner goteddy back too, but it's really hard right now.

Then get some fucking therapy.

[gobear]

Shoot, I wanted to let this thread die.

OK, last time.

No. Uhn uh. You specifically stated that I wish to give "aid and comfort" to the enemy. Either post a quote from me where I said any such thing or admit you're a damn liar

Did you say "I want to give aid and comfort to the enemy"? Well, no. But in the tenor of your comments, that firefighters should be ashamed of themselves for chanitng USA and that the deaths at the WTC are peanuts to the deaths America has caused (A damn lie, BTW,), yes, you're as bad as Tokyo Rose.


And I think you're a worthless piece of garbage who can't pull his head out of his fat ass long enough to figure it out

A worthless piece of garbage, but fat? Honey, you couldn't lift what I bench.

Get this now and get it right. Nobody deserves to be murdered. Is that clear enough for you, you dumbshit fatherfucker?

I'll agree with that 100 percent.

Oh, are we limiting it to this thread now? Funny how when you want to trash me you feel free to hark back to another thread, but then when I mention threats it's suddenly limited to this one. Hypocrite.

Produce one threat I have ever posted to you! Insults, sure, but no threats. You are a liar.


Then get some fucking therapy

Take your own advice. bitch.

[Otto]

Did you say "I want to give aid and comfort to the enemy"? Well, no. But in the tenor of your comments, that firefighters should be ashamed of themselves for chanitng USA and that the deaths at the WTC are peanuts to the deaths America has caused (A damn lie, BTW,), yes, you're as bad as Tokyo Rose.

Before I respond to the the last sentence, let's look again at the most important ones.

Did you say "I want to give aid and comfort to the enemy"? Well, no.

In other words, when you said I said this, you lied.

As for the rest, the first part's a distortion, the middle part's a sign of your ignorance and the last, well, I don't look good in a kimono.

A worthless piece of garbage, but fat? Honey, you couldn't lift what I bench.

Oh what was I thinking, of course someone's worth is directly related to how much he can bench press.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------
Get this now and get it right. Nobody deserves to be murdered. Is that clear enough for you, you dumbshit fatherfucker?

------------------------------------------------------------

I'll agree with that 100 percent.

And still you aren't man enough to apologize.

Produce one threat I have ever posted to you! Insults, sure, but no threats. You are a liar.

Hmm. Did I say you threatened me? But unless you want to compound your lies with another lie, you'll admit that I have been threatened on these boards.

[Otto]

Shoot, I wanted to let this thread die.

The way to let a thread die is to not post to it. See, if you post to a thread it pops the thread up to the top. Saying you want to let a thread die while posting to it is just a passive-aggressive ploy to try to make yourself look like you're above it all while still actually rolling in the trenches.

[Milossarian]

Otto (and, just because this is the Pit and I want to piss you off, I just spelled your name backwards, derisively):
Gee, David Horowitz wants to curtail civil liberties. Maybe he'll stop whining now about the college papers who refuse to run his silly anti-reparations ad.
My take was that he wasn't saying they didn't have a right to protest; he was saying they shouldn't protest, because it's harmful and not helpful.

pld:
Ugh. Milo, the terrorist attacks have probably resulted in us seeing eye-to-eye more so than on any topic ever, but if David Horowitz told me I was on fire, I'd want a second opinion. He is so fundamentally dishonest, I consider him to be simply untrustworthy.
To be honest, I don't know that much about him. I was aware of the slave reparations thing, which I saw as rather inflammatory on his part, but who am I to quibble about somebody giving a jab at academia desperately in need of jabbing?

I mostly found it interesting because, for whatever he's done since, the guy was one of the inventors of campus anti-war protesting.

Mandlestam:
I read your links.

I agree to a large extent with the premises of the alternet.org article. So does the Bush administration, obviously, given their ideas of providing humanitarian aid and direct information to Afghan citizens (an idea I'd like to see expanded throughout the Middle East), strongly urging Israel and the Palestinians to cease fire and negotiate, and setting aside past disagreements with certain countries formerly considered by us as rogues, and basing our new relationships with them on how they help us with the terrorism threat.

Where I disagree is, they seem to think changing perceptions of America in the Middle East is the most important goal, and anything else we do is not as important and won't stop the terrorism threat against us. It may be the most important long-term goal, but I do not see it as the most important short-term goal. That is obliterating the highly organized, elaborate terrorism networks that have done us harm and seek to do us more harm. That one involves the military, law enforcement and intelligence.

A large group of people that has emnity for us we can deal with - and will have to regardless. It isn't as though we can change those views overnight. It's when they are actively taking steps against our national security that they must be stopped, and I believe can be stopped.

The article in The Nation is more of what's been pissing me off post September 11. I don't know the extent of our collaboration with bad people in Latin America. I don't know the extent to which they were carrying out atrocious activities that we wanted them to carry out, or were just having their own fun in their spare time, aside from what they were doing for us.

You can rest assured, however, that I'm not going to take The Nation's or Guinastasia's Latin American Studies prof's word on it as last-word gospel.

More importantly, I don't think Osama bin Laden knows about or gives a fuck about what the U.S. did in Latin America, either. He has no qualms with our involvement with him in the Afghan war against the Soviets, either, from everything that I've heard.

Hindsight is 20/20. Supporting the freedom fighters against the Soviets was provably, demonstrably, a worthwhile endeavor.

It is unfair to say that either of the above should allow blame to be assigned to the United States for September 11. And The Nation's article does that in plain English in the first paragraph.

I disagree that bin Laden's attacks are solely motivated by American foreign policy. The idea that it was not an attack "on America" and everything it stands for is ludicrous. (Stated in plain English in the first line of the second paragraph of the article.)

The second graph almost seems to imply that the terrorist were RIGHT, in some weird way, to attack us as they did, because how else do you attack the mighty U.S. if not by slaughtering innocent people?

I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't mean to imply the implication I'm taking there.

Very next line - the attack renders the power of our military "useless." Horseshit. Knee-jerk. Or, to put it another way, I guess we'll see about that. "The terrorists offer it no targets." Horseshit. I guess we'll see about that, too.

Calling bin Laden a "CIA creation?" Horseshit. We trained bin Laden to do a job. He did the job we wanted him to do. It was a demonstrably, provably worthwhile effort. We didn't train him to hate or kill Americans. Those views came later. (And I think are more about his lust for power, cynically using an angle that plays with suffering Muslims looking for a scapegoat.)

Should we have abandoned Afghanistan the way we did after the Soviets left? No; we should not have. It was a major mistake. We missed a golden opportunity there.

Sorry; I disagree with the tenor and substance of almost every line of that Nation article.

We did nothing - NOTHING; EVER - that in ANY WAY provides the remotest justification for the acts of Sept. 11. We have the capability, the responsibility, and the moral right to turn to cinders those who did it.

For a less ideologically skewed perspective that touches on some similar points, I highly recommend another column. It inspired me to start a GD thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=90732), and it's linked there.

Couldn't bear to further hijack gobear's careening thread. (I support your views, though, gb, as I'm sure is obvious.)

[Mandelstam]

Milossarian, enjoyed reading your reply; thanks for writing at such length. I feel there's no need for me to go through it point by point as, by now, you can probably guess just where I'd want to differ.

The only thing I strongly disagree with is the characterization that Chalmers Johnson (the author of The Nation piece) is justifying the attacks. I feel very certain that were he posting he would say that nothing can justify so indiscriminate a slaughter. There is very big difference between saying that something is predictable based on certain historical conditions (and Johnson's book did in fact predict a major terrorist problem in this century), and saying that insofar as it is predictable the thing is also justified. It's just not the same. Johnson's logic is that we can predict more of the same unless we change our ways; not that innocent civilians deserve more of the same or anything of that order.

That said, as I said when I first posted, I still think Johnson overstates his case. I agree that Latin American activities probably meant little or nothing to ObL.

I will check out your column/thread tomorrow.

Thanks again :).

[Otto]

MiloOtto (and, just because this is the Pit and I want to piss you off, I just spelled your name backwards, derisively)

You go to hell! You go to hell and you die!

My take was that he wasn't saying they didn't have a right to protest; he was saying they shouldn't protest, because it's harmful and not helpful.

Man, I didn't get that at all. Let me read it again.

:::reading it again:::

No, I'm not getting that at all. I'm getting 'I committed treason when I protested against the Vietnam War and the people who are protesting now are just like I was. I wish someone back then had been less tolerant of my treason and I hope that someone today will be less tolerant of this new treason.'

Putting aside that I find his analysis that the protests prolonged the Vietnam war to be completely ridiculous, he's pretty much said that the speech of at least some of the current protestors has crossed the line into "treason" which is non-protected under the Constitution. Since "treason" is the only constitutionally-defined crime, anyone accusing another of treason ought to be able to show by evidence that the accused has levied war against the United States, or "adhered to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." (Article III section 3) He hasn't done so, choosing instead to rail against his perpetual shibboleths, "Marxists and radicals." Which as near as I can tell, is defined as "people who disagree with the brilliant pronouncements of David Horowitz."

Can you tell that I think Horowitz is a near-total nincompoop?

[Milossarian]

Try Michael Kelly (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61527-2001Oct3.html) again, then. He's back on the pacifists, and continues to hit bullseyes:
(M)uch of what is passing for pacifism in this instance is not pacifism at all but only the latest tedious manifestation of a well-known pre-existing condition: the largely reactionary, largely incoherent, largely silly muddle of anti-American, anti-corporatist, anti-globalist sentiments that passes for the politics of the left these days.

He notes that the largest anti-war rally that has occurred to date, the recent one in Washington, was scheduled before Sept. 11. Which might lead one to believe that protestors protest to protest. Just hand 'em a white paper with the cause du jour, let them know the words to the chant and give them a minute to get the rhythm down.

He also notes that the precise reason said cretins are able to protest is because their freedoms have been protected for 225 years by a powerful military.

How many pacifists would be willing to accept the logical outcome of their creed of nonviolence even in face of attack -- life as a conquered people? Not many, I would think.
1-2-3-4, We don't want your racist war?

But you want us to get the terrorists, right?

Just so long as no other innocent person is hurt.

To which I respond: And if that's impossible, then what?

[Mandelstam]

Milo: "[Kelly] notes that the largest anti-war rally that has occurred to date, the recent one in Washington, was scheduled before Sept. 11. Which might lead one to believe that protestors protest to protest. Just hand 'em a white paper with the cause du jour, let them know the words to the chant and give them a minute to get the rhythm down."

But that's absurd, Milossarian, and shows his complete ignorance of what the fair trade movement is about. (I dislike the phrase "anti-globalization" because most protesters aren't in fact anti-globalization; they're anti-globalization in the form it's now taking which, they hold, is unfair.)

One of the key protest issues for the fair trade movement is that the US government, on behalf of multinational corporations, dominates and, at times, enforces an agenda that hurts the less powerful. The so-called "Washington consensus" often involves the US government's coercion of less powerful nations. For obvious reasons, this issue overlaps with any kind of excessive military coercion that might take place in the future. Peace protests are an important way of expressing sentiments that don't get adequately expressed in the mainstream media, despite it's so-called leftwing bias.

The only thing that is muddled and confused here is Michael Kelly's understanding of the issues: both economic and military. And they are, indeed, rather complicated. But, seriously, Milossarian, you seem a lot more clued in than Kelly does and I think you'd be wise to keep your distance from such a two-bit mudslinger.

(BTW, probably won't get to look at that other thread till tomorrow.)

[Mandelstam]

"He also notes that the precise reason said cretins are able to protest is because their freedoms have been protected for 225 years by a powerful military."

That is complete and total bullshit. Check your history Milo. Standing armies didn't figure large in US history until well into the twentieth century. Early in history, as often in British history, standing armies were actually feared because people feared they would be used to encroach upon liberties. And for the two hundredth time, few of these people are likely to be absolute pacifists who will settle for nothing less than the complete dismantling of the US armed forces. Once again, to be put it somewhat unkindly, Kelly is a moron with press card.

[Otto]

MiloHe notes that the largest anti-war rally that has occurred to date, the recent one in Washington, was scheduled before Sept. 11. Which might lead one to believe that protestors protest to protest.

It might, if one were completely ignorant of the original reason the protest was called. The original target of the demonstrations was the meetings of the World bank and International Monetary Fund. Since those meetings were cancelled in the wake of the attacks and since the rather pressing issue of the potential launch of another world war presented itself, the focus expanded to include calls for peace.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by Otto
Since those meetings were cancelled in the wake of the attacks and since the rather pressing issue of the potential launch of another world war presented itself, the focus expanded to include calls for peace.


OK, if I hear how we're going to start World War Three once more I'm going to scream.

World War Three? Give me a fucking break. Who with? Christ, almost everyone condemned the attacks! In there was a 'war' ("Oh god, anything but that! Someone innocent might die!" "Like the 6000 from September 11th!" "Well, you know what I mean.")

Like it or not, there are going to be retaliations against those responsible. If you don't like it, well what would be a resonable course of action? Maybe waiting until Al Queda gets a stray H-Bomb and levels the rest of New York or Washington. Or until they start an epedemic which kills millions of Americans? Compared to what could happen if we do nothing, I think you are either remarkably naive or completely whacko.