Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: I defy you to disagree with this


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: I defy you to disagree with this Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 10:03:19 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Lets cut the the chase. Do you think educated people in a society that had mathematics at a time when western nations thought baths caused illnesses, would wake up one day and decide, "I think I hate Americans today and will throw my life away to fly into buildings?"

 
Not at all. My position doesn't have any consideration to how we got here. I'll stipulate to all you are saying. I'll ask you to respond to this as I did Chain:

Where do you see the USA going as a logical consequence of your position? Don't address what is wrong now or slogans about an America "worth living in or dying for". Where and with who will you negotiate the 1000 years peace and under what terms? It would help me if you can site any Muslim country enjoying any of the rights you hold so dear and are currently in fear of losing.

It matters not how our adversaries came to call us Satan or for us to call them Satan. Call them misunderstood instead of terrorists it doesn't change their actions. Should we just accept the killing of civilians and the occasional bombing, or plane going into a building from these misunderstood and hurt individuals? Create your own 'why we got here'. How do you propose reconciling the status quo? Do we bomb Israel because the Muslim world will not accept a world where Israel exists?

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 10:12:35 AM   
OedipusRexIt


Posts: 634
Joined: 11/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

perhaps defy you not to disagree with it.  Now you are in a pickle.

I thought the very same thing on first read.

Ron




Well said!!!!!!  Touche.  Ya got me.


Actually, I agree with the OP.  I just don't care for that approach to getting the truth across.



_____________________________

"My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die..."

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 10:14:29 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pavel

Ahem, meatcleaver?  The difference between Washington's Army, and terrorists, is their choice of weapons.  Washington's forces in the field fought, and took land, fighting in a a then unconventional (sometimes!) manner.  A terrorist, by its nature, uses violence to inflict terror, to in turn, use that terror to gain influence and control.



I think you will find the American War of Independence or Revolutionary War, depending on what side of the fence you are on, was not such a clean war and was as much a civil war as opposed to a fight between two named enemies on the field. The flight to Canada by thousands of Empire Loyalists was not simply because they thought the best side lost.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pavel

Also, I happen to agree in the sense that every major civilization has had its "barbarians at the gate."  I think, however, it's essential to keep their numbers down, or to keep them otherwise occupied.  Blowing them up when the chance presents itself seems to be a good option to me. 



Despite the Roman's belief in that they were civilised, the barbarian hordes were far more civilised than the Romans. The West has continued to blind itself that it is more civilised than the barbarians while successive western empires have gone round the world holding countiries to ransome at the barrel of a gun.

I'm sure there are still subsistence farmers in the middle of Africa who blame the British for the low milk yield of their cows. We've had our turn and now it's your turn but nothing has changed and we continue to fool ourselves about being the civilised ones.

And it was the French that defeated the British, not Washington. The War of Independence was a minor skirmish in what Churchill called the first world war between the British, French and Spanish empires. The loss of the American colonies of the time was no great shakes in the larger scale of things. The USA becoming a superpower has altered that perception.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 6/6/2006 10:21:39 AM >

(in reply to Pavel)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 10:22:01 AM   
NastyDaddy


Posts: 957
Joined: 9/8/2004
Status: offline 		French terrorists in WWII harassed and fought the occupying German liberators... and helped to regain their country, perceived by most French citizens at the time as already lost.

What the Germans perceived as terrorists were guerilla fighters for a common united cause, were known to the west as the French Underground, or freedom fighters.

History is well laden with similar instances of some form of oppression being followed by some form of revolt by those being oppressed.

I find it ironic that many historical and current oppressions fundamentally involve one religious belief against an opposing religious belief.

OBL and his brainwashed zealots didn't attack the WTC during any military occupation, war or conflict... other than during their occupation of Afghanistan by their Taliban base.

I've seen comments regarding western attitudes, use and treatments of other countries and their resources, sure this is one aspect of third world hatred. Another very big aspect is the western ties to the country of Israel which is considered by most Muslim nations as their dire enemy, based on what is considered by many to be stolen homelands and of course basic religious difference. The US played a big role in post WWII actions to consolidate lands from some people in another country and create a new independent state. The repercussions have been steadily growing from both that, and aggressive often uncontrolled big business global economic strategies, whether fair or not fair.

When will terrorism end?  What one considers to be acts of terrorism, another considers to be a freedom fight against oppression and control.

It may take 40 days and 40 nights of steady downpouring rain to stop it for this go around...


(in reply to lisa1978)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 10:22:10 AM   
RottenJohnny


Posts: 1677
Joined: 5/5/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pavel

Somehow, I'm sure by the end of this post, I'm going to be banging my head against the desk, yelling "make it stop."



I'm already there!

My two pennies:
Is there a war on terror? Yup.

Is it being executed in the best way for success? Nope.

Is the desire for profit influencing the way the war is being conducted? Yup.

Is this eventually going to result in a nuke attack? I'm afraid so.

What will we do then? Become our worst enemy and hit them back even harder.

Is there hope? Yup.

Why? Because, regardless of religious beliefs and dogma, there are still more people who desire simple freedom and human rights than those who don't. As I see it, Democracy is the one method of government that let's freedom loving people take control of their destiny.

Will it ever be the way we want it? Nope. But as long as the shooting stops I'm ok with that.

(in reply to Pavel)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 10:41:34 AM   
Pavel


Posts: 308
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Washington
Status: offline 		As I said meatcleaver.  Washington's Army however, was pretty much the model of conventional warfare.  The actions between loyalist vs uh, not loyalist militias can hardly be held to as an example of Washington instigateing terrorist acts.  You named a specific person, and I countered that.  In any event, the idea of a clean war is daft. 

The French aided the American cause greatly (once they stopped screwing around, and put some half decent officers in charge).  However, by the time the French put in a desisive effort, the Americans had proven quite able to handle themselves, and had on several occasions forced the English Army to withdraw to New York, and a few other strongholds.  The French effectively ended the war, but to claim that they defeated the British would be the same as claiming the Americans defeated the Germans in the First World War.

I simply used the barbarian phrase given its generally understood meaning.  I could have been speaking from the Chinese perspective in any event.  The concept remains a valid one (at least as far as describeing what I was trying to say), if not historically accurate.


(in reply to RottenJohnny)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 11:08:08 AM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline 		Mercnbeth:

The London Underground bombings are proof that fascism achieves nothing against small determined groups. London was at the time of the bombings, and still is, one of the most surveillanced locations on earth.

Two comic books come to mind that make an interesting point: "Ronin" and "V for Vendetta." Both are stories that in part show that a determined individual can achieve amazing results if they are entirely willing to die in the performance of a given act. "If you intend to die you can do anything." - Frank Miller. That is effectively the credo of the kamikaze and the suicide bomber. What are you going to do to stop them? Shoot them? They intend to die, you have to kill them before they can act - and that is not so easy. In fact, it's near impossible.

As far as negotiating 1,000 years of peace - who cares? That's irrelevant. Considering what the U.S. does abroad right now, I'd settle simply for a score or two of years where we did very little to annoy anyone else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Should we just accept the killing of civilians and the occasional bombing, or plane going into a building from these misunderstood and hurt individuals?


I don't understand your characterization of terrorists except as some attempt to lampoon some kind of anticipated contrary position, so whatever...

I ask you: what's being done right now to stop them? Nothing. Why is that? Because most of the people that are guilty of the act died in the act. Their co-conspirators are not easy targets because it requires intelligence (info) that we may not have to locate them. So yes, we have to live with the fact that terrorists can and often do act with impunity. I'd love to hear the option but in reality there simply isn't one. You have to swallow your rage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Do we bomb Israel because the Muslim world will not accept a world where Israel exists?


I don't know that they can't accept a world with Israel in it. I know they can't accept a world with an expansionist Israel, and I can't say that I blame them. How about a true Palestine? Or would defusing that particular political football make too much sense in a world where fear is how things get done?





_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to Pavel)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 11:08:22 AM   
OedipusRexIt


Posts: 634
Joined: 11/15/2005
Status: offline 		Why don't we leave it at

"War is hell" - William T. Sherman

And agree that people sometimes do bad things for what they think are good reasons, while others do bad things for what they know are bad reasons. 

They should all stop. 

They're unlikely to. 

Good people should hold them all accountable.

_____________________________

"My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die..."

(in reply to Pavel)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 11:39:18 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		War won't stop as long as the rich can make money out of it.

(in reply to OedipusRexIt)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 11:50:17 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Should we just accept the killing of civilians and the occasional bombing, or plane going into a building from these misunderstood and hurt individuals?


I don't understand your characterization of terrorists except as some attempt to lampoon some kind of anticipated contrary position, so whatever...


Chain,
My "characterization"? It's reality, yours and mine. It's occurring on a daily basis. How can any position you take ignore it?

quote:

I ask you: what's being done right now to stop them? Nothing. Why is that? Because most of the people that are guilty of the act died in the act. Their co-conspirators are not easy targets because it requires intelligence (info) that we may not have to locate them. So yes, we have to live with the fact that terrorists can and often do act with impunity.


I see this as an answer to the question. I read the above to be a statement of your  position. You capitulate, nothing can be done to stop them. Because the organizers are "not easy targets" we should not make any attempt, or again surrender? Lame as it currently is, I'd prefer continuing the current action. At least some of our adversaries resources have to be allocated to Iraqi insurgency. Again, I'd site what you say as a reason for why the west will lose, if not a example of how it has already. Should there be a nightly news segment where the talking head throws it to the buxom blond standing in front of a chart tallying up today's kills and maiming done by the "misunderstood" Muslims and let it go at that?

quote:

I don't know that they can't accept a world with Israel in it.


Why not? The president of a fundamentally run Muslim country tells you so. He's publically said he's building the bombs necessary to do so. Mahmuoud Ahmadinejad's direct quote called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". He wasn't contradicted by any internal adversary, none allowed. The leaders of his religion offered no alternative Muslim view. Where is your doubt derived?

Here's the reference: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/27/wiran27.xml

I have no rage. I see it as a pure logical conclusion and response to a very public position of a people and their religion. Rage may be a factor for the soldiers in the field as an end result of their frustration. But speaking with those coming back the overall sentiment is that these people do not warrant spending our blood to save. They have no desire for freedom because they don't understand the concept. It will take generations to gain that perspective. Meanwhile their behavior is that of a zoo bred lion being tossed into the wild. They have no idea how to do what the western world assumes comes natural. If you've lived under some sort of dictatorship for 100's of generations, learning to accept a differing opinion and having a dialog with your adversary isn't going to happen. It hasn't happened and no matter how many US soldiers die in the attempt, it's not going to happen.

I want to make sure I understand. You're solution is surrender, meanwhile accept and be resigned to the result of ongoing terrorist activities?

quote:

As far as negotiating 1,000 years of peace - who cares?


Wow - I do! I thought you did too. Why wouldn't you?

(in reply to Chaingang)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 11:51:27 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Where do you see the USA going as a logical consequence of your position? Don't address what is wrong now or slogans about an America "worth living in or dying for". Where and with who will you negotiate the 1000 years peace and under what terms? It would help me if you can site any Muslim country enjoying any of the rights you hold so dear and are currently in fear of losing. 


Before responding, I would like to thank everyone that has contributed to what I feel is an excellent thread with quality debate, presented by passionate and respectful adults.
 
I don't see it as a question of where we go as a nation, as much as a question of where we should not let ourself be taken by leaders with a contrary agenda.
 
Some men flew aircraft into buildings. They were backed by another small group of men. Going after those people is right, and acceptable. Inventing a global war on terror and invading whole nations, because terrorists happen to live there, are just not the actions of a stable government. Timothy McVeigh lived in the United States, and was a terrorist. Should we militarily occupy his home town, because he happened to live there?
 
A thousand years of peace is an unreasonable goal for a nation as powerful as the United States, especially given the amount of money we spend on our armed forces. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing ... but given the number of "real" reasons for war, do we really need to be inventing reasons? I'm reminded of a passage from Procopius' "Secret Histories" concerning a quote he attributed to the Byzantine Emperor Justininan when discussing relations with smaller nations: "One difficult thing about being an empire, is that on occasion you are expected to act like one."
 
As far as rights in other countries, that's not my concern. If people in those countries want more rights, they should fight for them. If enough people in Iraq wanted to be rid of Saddam, there is a clear path to make that happen.
 
A bit of a rambling response ... my apologies.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 11:58:39 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		To wipe Israel off the map with nukes would mean to wipe Palastine off the map at the same time, along with serious consequences for Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. Nukes in the Isreali-Palastine conflict are irrational but talking them up helps both sides politically at home. Mahmuoud Ahmadinejad's lets his mouth run away with himself, which is bad for foreign consumption but good for home consumption, just as Bush talking up the terrorist threat which he seems to perceive helps him domestically. The Iranians feel vulnerable with Isreal having nukes, as has Pakistan to its east and Russia to its north, along with American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 12:06:16 PM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline 		Mercnbeth:

So the way to make peace is to keep slapping the "enemy" in the face? Somehow I doubt it...

BTW, I do think there are things we could do to increase security for our nation that have nothing to do with harassing its own citizens. Fighting wars abroad I think does little to achieve anything meaningful in this respect - it's just a ruse for other agendas and I think we all agree on that.

BTW, presuming OBL is guilty of the 9/11 hit, capturing him and punishing him would go a long way toward letting terrorists know how we might deal with them. And yet our beloved "leader" is unconcerned with such a goal. Why?

Something doesn't add up in this equation.

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 12:06:51 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

A bit of a rambling response ... my apologies.

 
caitlyn,
Not rambling at all, but also not an alternative. Appreciating your study of history, your quote of Justinian could be a quote from President Bush to rationalize his position.

The US military and it's intelligence operation is already occupying Timothy McVeigh's home town. Your home town and mine too for that matter. They just aren't wearing the same uniform as the troops in Iraq. It's not a bad thing. Generally the police and other law enforcement entities in the US serve to protect us from other potential Timothy McVeigh's.

I regret the distraction of the 1000 years of peace reference. How about one day of peace? An hour??

The "1000 Years of Peace" is a Biblical reference and proves that no matter how far removed, a catholic education can not be repressed.

If you care to read some propaganda here are a couple sites:
http://islandgrove.qldwide.net.au/bible_college/16_1000_years_of_peace.html
http://www.damascusfriends.org/Revelation/Revelation16.htm

I think it rose in my mind because of it being "Revelations" day of 6/6/6.

Sorry. It was more appropriate for a Jeopardy square...

"I'll take obscure Biblical reference for a $1000 Alex..."

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 12:14:09 PM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline 		Nukes are about mutually assured destruction. If someone actually lights up anyone else, we are all screwed anyway.

But with the first bit in mind, the U.S. attitude of "we got ours but no one else gets theirs" is wildly ludicrous. Of course everyone wants nukes too. They have to settle the imbalance of power or be prepared to suck U.S. cock and eat shit forever. And us running around the world stomping their faces into the shit pile doesn't really win us any friends or encourage complacency, does it?

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to Chaingang)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 12:18:55 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

So the way to make peace is to keep slapping the "enemy" in the face? Somehow I doubt it...


Chain,
Simply offer an alternative plan? It's not working? Assume I agree. Other than complain and say it's not working - Now what? And if you tell me to negotiate, with whom, about what, and what prior behavior indicates that's possible?

Meat,
quote:

To wipe Israel off the map with nukes would mean to wipe Palestine off the map at the same time, along with serious consequences for Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc. etc.


If you read President Ahmadinejad's published quotes and transcripts of his speeches he accepts your consequences as accurate. He's not only accepting of it - he seeks it! He says that he is doing Allah's will and any Muslim dieing in such an event will enjoy eternity in paradise.

It is not the same "MAD" attitude of the USA v. USSR. This man wants to be around when the story ends. A Muslim world or no world at all are both acceptable endings for him; by his own words. The silence of an opposing view  from the leaders of the "peaceful religion" is deafening.

(in reply to Chaingang)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 12:33:40 PM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline 		You just have to know when it's worth fighting and when its not. This is quickly becoming "global thermonuclear warfare" (aka Tic Tac Toe). You want an obscure reference? IIRC, the only way to win is not play the game in the first place. Alternatively, we play (as we are doing) and assure everyone's destruction.

Aren't we the same as President Ahmadinejad. Is there some reason he shouldn't view us that way?

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 12:39:27 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Appreciating your study of history, your quote of Justinian could be a quote from President Bush to rationalize his position.


Yes, I have seen him use so many different rationalizations, that just about any quote could be from him. That sort of tactic stopped working for me with my foster parents, when I was about 15.
 
I'm going to take my time and read your links, and respond later. I'm short on brain power at the moment and have to work in a few hours.
 
Again, thank you for the response and the good debate. 

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 12:44:13 PM   
Moloch


Posts: 1090
Joined: 6/25/2005
Status: offline 		War on terror?  Look its just a bunch of pissed off yokels or moon barkers or bible thumpers thinking "Im gonna fight the evil man!" They live in their own world, they will always be around. 

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: I defy you to disagree with this - 6/6/2006 12:51:44 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Aren't we the same as President Ahmadinejad. Is there some reason he shouldn't view us that way?


I don't believe we are, but I can appreciate that our adversaries would not agree with that position. I'd go farther as to say whether killed by a nuke or killed by a cruise missile, grenade, AK47, or anthrax; the bottom line is the same.

As I've said it other threads of this nature; I'd pull back, and leave the natives to their own devises. There is one caveat to that position. Any attack on the US will generate a ten fold response. Therein the problem lies.

Define attack? Does it include cutting off our oil supply? Does the definition include an attack on our treaty documented allies?

Who gets the response? Bin Ladin was in Afghanistan, if there is another attack where he shows up on the internet taking "credit" do we nuke the country he may have lived in while planing the attack or where he goes subsequently?

I'd prefer a solution where the leaders police themselves and have a policy in opposition of MAD. How about a policy of MAS, "Mutually Assured Survival"? It's a nice thought but the dogma of the religion at issue doesn't permit it. At least not from the perspective of it's current leaders. I don't see it changing. The "voice of reason" is missing from the other side of the equation. I never want  to be more wrong.

quote:

You want an obscure reference? IIRC, the only way to win is not play the game in the first place.
Can we make elect 'Joshua' aka 'W.O.P.R.'  as the next president of Iran? Josh didn't see the possibility of an afterlife and logically wanted to avoid his own demise. President Ahmadinejad, is not playing by that  rule.

(in reply to Chaingang)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: I defy you to disagree with this Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094