You took the words right out of my mouth... danke.
Re:How very clever
> ok, never mind, don't worry about it. good,cuz i only check this site once and awhile...sooo see yoo later than.danny . i dont know who it was , maybe even a typo or some compiuter error///
Re: nutty slack
> Perhaps you want to backtrack from your previous statements,
> but you said if America and Britain "have their way"
> we'll
> murder innocent children.
Why should I backtrack? According to the news here there's already been civilians killed, so does that not mean innocent kids? I don't know if you are getting a news 'black out' in America.
> What I see on the news are reports that we bombed military
> targets such as airports, unpopulated terrorist camps, and the
> vacant residences of some of the fascist psychopaths. Why do you
> cry for the destruction of these tools that have been used to
> oppress
> Afghanis and bring mass murder to the world?
You still miss the point, bombing doesn't work unless you bomb the nation to nothing, eg Dresden, Germany ww11.
Since when as an airport been a military target? How does an airport oppress anyone?
> I guess I missed the reports of us targetting innocent children.
> What channel was that on? The bin LAden News NEtwork? I did
> see us sending in food for the people starving to death under
> their fascist regime.
Shame really that so much aid wasn't deemed necessary before the war, possible solution to the nation of Afghanistan overthrowing their ruling class. Oh about the irport being bombed I saw it reported on the b.b.c. hardly bin ladens news network, we don't get that here.
> When you talk of innocents dying, it's odd to me that you
> make no mention of the fact that your average Afghani child
> has been dying before the age of 5 under the Taliban.
> You also seem unaware that the World Bank just reported
> 40,000 children worldwide will starve to death as
> a direct result of the worldwide economic problems caused by
> Sept. 11,
> and millions more will fall into desperate poverty.
Thanks for telling me how good the world (U.S.) bank is, starving kids love to eat the good old green back dollars, very nutritious! The slight issue you seem to have over looked or not been aware of is that the econmic world wide crisis that was already looming pre Sept' 11th. Mind you another sickening fact is that there's always money avialable for war but it's in short supply when hospitals need it, when the education sytem needs it, why's that?
> You apparantly would have taken the view in WW2 that
> the Allies were "murdering" innocent German children
> when they were taking down the nazis.
I see there's an old news black out on your version of modern history too. See above Dresden comment for the answer to that.
> I said: "America, Britain, and the rest of the
> alliance."
Yes but if you READ what you said you told me I was anti-american ONLY.
> Bush would have been what you suggest had he carpet bombed
> populated areas and/or used nukes in an irrational
> revenge mission. Instead, Bush has followed the advice of
> Colin Powell, united the civilized world, acted patiently
> and justly, and views part of the mission as humanitarian to
> help
> the people of Afghanistan. You failed to reserve judgment, and
> thus far he is proving you wrong. I will be the first to take
> to the streets if the policy turns immoral, and I would
> agree that American policy has been immoral at times in
> history.
When the truth comes out I will be glad to have you walk at my side.
> He wants to exterminate the "infidels" which are any
> people
> who don't subscribe to his fundamentalist beliefs. Including
> other muslims, whom he deems "impure" and thus
> deserving
> of slaughter. I choose to call him a fascist because
> he reminds me of Hitler. As an Afghani wrote at salon.com
> recently, the Taliban are like the NAzis, bin LAden is like
> Hitler, and the people of Afghanistan are like the Jews in the
> concentration camps.
I understand you clumping bin laden & his cronies as fascists, fascism grew out of the middle classes frustration & hatred of communism in the late 1910's in Italy. The system (capitalism) was in crisis (whoops how's it doing at the moment), so that's the origins of fascism, hitler took it through to it's logical conclusion & illogical conclusion too. He wanted to rid the world of communists, jews, homosexuals, disabled (mentally & physical) black people & anyone who disagreed with him or made him feel inferior.
> I posted an essay by Salman
> Rushdie which I find to be the best thing written about
> all this, and it is under a message I titled "more
> for the self-hating left." Salman Rushdie, you may recall,
> was the writer these type of Islamic fundamentalists targeted
> for death just because he wrote a book. The kind of world these
> people want is a world of Islamic fascism, where unveiled
> women have acid thrown on their faces, and anyone and anything
> not pure enough must be destroyed (thus they blew up 2000 year
> old Buddhas). They attempted to kill 100,000 innocent
> New Yorkers in one hour, and to blow up our centers of
> democracy, economy, and defense. The 6000+ they did succeed in
> killing
> is about the same number of innocents Milosevic slaughtered
> in genocide. We no longer
> can afford to coexist with them. They have brought hell to
> their own people, and they are trying to bring hell to you
> and your family as well. At some point, please find enough
> respect for the modern world I assume you enjoy living in
> to stop those who want to push it into chaos, disorder, and
> fear.
Salman Rushdie, a middle class geezer with an axe to grind, he wrote a trilogy one third of it was called 'the satanic verses' yep I'll listen to him all night long. *yawn*. What I've tried to get you to understand is to think for yourself, I know it must be difficult with all this war mongering talk/jokes etc etc going on, we had the same over here during the Falkland war, most people (I included) hadn't a clue where the feck the Falklands was at the time. But you get all the press (the same as now) with their blood lust, national patriotism is what they call it.
> So, yes, bombs away.
How very sad & sorry I feel for you for that murderous comment, bin laden would no doubt wish to quote you on that.
> And to bring him to justice requires military action.
If this is so, then do it to him not to the innocent people of Afghanistan!
> Targetting innocents, or not taking reasonable precautions
> to minimize accidental innocents from dying, would be wrong. Not
> all war is wrong or "murder" however. This is one of
> the just wars, and thus far we are fighting it in exemplary
> fashion.
A 'just' war, I think it was an American who gave us the quote "fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity". Wake up & smell the burning flesh.
> The point in answering would be to prove how serious you
> are. If you can't think of a better option for us
> to take, why should I not continue to support the present
> action? I certainly cannot support NON-action. In the real
> world you sometimes have to do things you wish you didn't.
I love this real world, let's just push that button & end it for once & for all.
> You made derogatory, judgmental statements yourself, calling
> Bush, Blair, and by implication those who support their
> present actions, child murderers. You must have known
> this would be offensive to some of us, who aren't going
> to sit here and be called evil when we are trying to
> honorably and morally do something about one of the worst
> single day mass slaughers of innocent people in human history.
If stating the truth about war is being derogatory then I'm guilty as charged. I didn't answer the original post to the (in my opinion) very offensive numbty who goes by the name of punchdrunk to appear likeable to him or anyone else for that matter.
> It's amazing to me that you have far harsher language
> against Bush and Blair than you do against bin Laden.
> I know you're no fan of bin Laden, but there's gotta
> be something telling about that.
What do you want me to say about bin laden? I've stated he should be tried & if found guilty of the attrocity of Sept' 11th then he should pay the penalty decided by the courts. I've not said that bush/blair should be charged with the murder they are committing but I think you are right & thank you for pointing that out.
> I don't consider it murder to kill fascists who attacked
> my country and targetted innocent people. Self-defense is not
> murder. Check your English common law and you'll see.
> In American criminal law, for example, one who is at risk of
> imminent death or serious bodily harm has a right to use deadly
> force
> to protect himself. This is a basic moral principle. It is not
> barbaric to defend my home, my country, my way of life, and all
> of modern civilization against religious freak psychopaths who
> are an imminent threat. It would
> be suicide not to.
It's illegal for people to steal a loaf of bread over here even if they are starving, English common law, the laws are made by & for the ruling classes. It's illegal to drive a car over 30 miles per hour in a built up area but it happens ever day.
> This was a get out from answering the question.
I told you I bow down to your superior knowledge, although you appear very selective about which points to argue back with but fortunately you open up with even greater arguements as to why we shouldn't be at war, obviously inadvertantly unless you are playing devils' advocate.
> I don't claim to have superior knowledge. I just think some
> people have been taught to hate all things America and all
> things West for so long that they feel guilty to stand up for
> their way of life against fascists.
> (If you want my definition of "our way of life," see
> the Salman
> Rushdie essay.)
I don't hate the west, east, north or south. Once again I'll state I love the World it's just the evil b**tards that have brainwashed you that I hate.
I've stood up to fascism in this country & felt the comforting thud from a policemans batton, you see because over here in this country the police protect the nazis.
May I suggest that should you wish to carry on this 'discussion' with me then that we do it by email & not bother everyone else here with 'our' petty squabbling.
I will provide as many answers as you require, until my fingers drop off if necessary or we have some mutual understanding which ever is the sooner.
Understanding is the key word, not excuses but understanding of all the events. Murder shouldn't be a solution or an option by any side.
love the World
Grim O'Grady
P.s. you never bothered to answer my Dr Who question did you.
Re: nutty slack
> Why should I backtrack? According to the news here there's
> already been civilians killed, so does that not mean innocent
> kids? I don't know if you are getting a news 'black out' in
> America.
There is a difference between creating unintentional casualties due to a self-defense operation and strictly focusing on civilians as a means to promote your religious or political motive.
If indeed there have been civilian casualties, and of course there are going to be some, there is nothing to indicate whatsoever that they were, in any way, intentionally targeted like those on Sept. 11.
The sentiment that you are expressing is one of emotional weakness. You simply cannot accept the fact that mankind is inherently violent, and that sometimes violence in return is required to end the violent actions of a perpetrator.
To continually assert that by displaying passivity that we are somehow going to overthrow a terrorist ring that exists in over 60 countries, is not only naive, but should be personally offensive to those who lost loved ones on Sept. 11, and those who currently reside in America. In essence what you are saying is that we should take the long, unrealistic shot of setting an example of passiveness in exchange for the more urgent likelihood that it will mean absolutely nothing to those who carried out these attacks, and do nothing to cure the current problem that we are in.
Quite astonishing.
You are so completely wrapped up in the fancy notion of peace as an absolute that it clouds your ability to make circumstantial decisions about the safety of millions of people. That's why people in these situations make the decisions that they do, and choose to defend themselves because they can no longer play to their ideals without risking the lives of many people and their own as well.
It is another reason why ideological political movements never gain any significant power, or thereby crumble, because there is a degree of compromise in personal beliefs when real world decisions need to be made.
By speaking out alone, you risk no burden of having millions of people killed by your own opinion, therefore, you feel quite comfortable asserting this ideal. For at the very least, you would only appear as naive, and actually not having to possess the blood of millions on your hands.
Violence serves a purpose. As long as human beings express violence, violence will be necessary in order to stop it. If we had simply employed your philosophy in the past, you would be speaking German right now, and the world as we know would not likely exist today. And this here, is your key flaw, like some many others who use the same philosophy as you do to oppose sensible reaction. Your understanding of the human mind in general is quite disturbing if you think everyone can be spoken to rationally in regards to peace through diplomacy or therapy alone.
It also shows that your comprehension of Bin Alden, and Al Qaeda is extremely limited, for diplomacy in this instance does not apply to the motives that they are guided by.
But then again, you are not the president of a country, or a chief military strategist in charge of defending millions of people, so what do you have to lose? Surely the prospect of a demolished country doesn't place any sense of urgency or sensibility within your thoughts.
> You still miss the point, bombing doesn't work unless you bomb
> the nation to nothing, eg Dresden, Germany ww11.
> Since when as an airport been a military target? How does an
> airport oppress anyone?
This is again, a completely simplistic, naïve response to a very complex action. The airports are a military target because they allow the access of terrorist allies to gain entry and exit form the country. This is quite obvious. The point of bombing strategic sites is not to bomb individuals alone, but to bomb access to supplies, and travel. Your understanding of military strategy is quite appalling, and I think you should think before you speak, unless of course it is intentional. And alas, where my friend is it written that bombing strategic sites that allow mobility and communication is ineffective military strategy?
I think the allies in WW2 would disagree with you, for that has always been a staple of military strategy.
So, I think it is you who misses the point. You are simply stretching the bounds of sensibility and logic so you can continue to assert your religious, unmovable notion of passivity.
Uncompromisable ideology like yours is what has brought us to this point, not the opposite. In the real world you have to make compromised decisions. You have to make utilitarian like decisions, and weigh the pros and cons of your effort, not simply swipe your hand and proclaim it wrong no matter what is at stake.
> Shame really that so much aid wasn't deemed necessary before the
> war, possible solution to the nation of Afghanistan overthrowing
> their ruling class. Oh about the irport being bombed I saw it
> reported on the b.b.c. hardly bin ladens news network, we don't
> get that here.
The U.S. indeed has been giving aid to Afghanistan before the attacks occurred, and it’s a shame you don’t do proper research before you stick your neck out in a debate. A more sensible person would have simply refrained form responding.
I am also amused that you somehow feel that your government run television is somehow more effective at uncovering the “truth.”
> Thanks for telling me how good the world (U.S.) bank is,
> starving kids love to eat the good old green back dollars, very
> nutritious! The slight issue you seem to have over looked or not
> been aware of is that the econmic world wide crisis that was
> already looming pre Sept' 11th. Mind you another sickening fact
> is that there's always money avialable for war but it's in short
.supply when hospitals need it, when the education sytem needs it, why's that?
What does this have to do with our decision to defend our own country against terrorism?
Domestic governments have been oppressing people in Africa and the Middle East, and the rest of the world for ages, not the United States, though it is convenient for you to continue to proclaim our guilt, while not showing any concern for those governments in other countries who insist on oppressing their own people.
Simply giving the same amount of money to world poverty that we have spent on this military effort is not going to cure world poverty because it is only alleviating a temporary need, not along term one, which is the development of democratic governments and the allowance of economic interest to be built through that democracy.
I do not, in any way, consider myself a champion of globalization by any means, but I do see those who oppose the notion, as merely attempting to promote their own extreme collectivist ideals, instead of caring directly for poverty and the lack of jobs in third world countries.
If a third world nation wants free trade, and wants economic opportunity, then let them have it, and leave Marx out of it. The anti-globalization movement is not about caring for the oppression of the poor but making sure that the idea of extreme collectivism isn’t dealt it’s final death blow by it.
Nevertheless globalization is inevitable, and it might be the only strong link to any serious notions of peace. Money speaks more to people than any religious ideology does. No matter how much OPEC despises us, they still need us to by oil from them or they would be erased.
Besides, when you have a country you have people within its own borders that you must first concern yourself with, before you can plan on curing the rest of the world’s problems.
You can simplify it and call so and so a devil, but it doesn’t change the fact that the most serious problems of poverty are related to socio-economic, religious, and political ideology, not simply allowing people to do, for the most part, what they want with their lives.
> I see there's an old news black out on your version of modern
>history too. See above Dresden comment for the answer to that.
Your comment in regards to that was pointless and displayed nothing but ideological desperation.
The news black outs seem to be coming from your own end. Maybe having a building topple where you reside will hasten your realization. Until then, feel perfectly warm and cozy beneath your blanket of passivity.
> When the truth comes out I will be glad to have you walk at my
>side.
And I’m sure the “truth” will be in the form of some great American conspiracy to take over the Islamic world and oppress the poor.
> Salman Rushdie, a middle class geezer with an axe to grind, he
> wrote a trilogy one third of it was called 'the satanic verses'
> yep I'll listen to him all night long. *yawn*. What I've tried
> to get you to understand is to think for yourself, I know it
> must be difficult with all this war mongering talk/jokes etc etc
> going on, we had the same over here during the Falkland war,
> most people (I included) hadn't a clue where the feck the
> Falklands was at the time. But you get all the press (the same
> as now) with their blood lust, national patriotism is what they
>call it.
How can you make such an assertion without even being in America right now? How do you know what is appearing on American news networks and what they are discussing. It seems you have made a great leap of faith in your assertion.
Notice the quaintly placed “bloodlust” sloganeering that generally precedes every comment about American media portrayal that is so far from the truth that it is laughable.
The fact is our minds are free and opened. It is yours that is simply falling back on an uncompromisable ideology that you probably learned in University.
I voted for Ralph Nader for Christ Sakes, and I’m supporting this military effort. If that isn’t an open, compromisable mind for you, then I don’t know what is. I don’t see my political opinions as ideological and applicable to every scenario, thus allowing me to see things circumstantially and based on logical deductions.
I wish you could free your mind from personal and political ideology, and do the same.
What you speak of is a religion of sentiment, a fantasy of mankind born from a weakness in accepting the reality of man’s inherent nature.
You don’t want the world to be a certain way so you desperately wish that we react in a manner that best suits you emotionally, never stopping to wonder if it is even realistic.
> How very sad & sorry I feel for you for that murderous
>comment, bin laden would no doubt wish to quote you on that.
The obvious fact is, is that Bin Laden’s mission and our mission are not relative upon each other’s intent. We are protecting ourselves and he is attacking us. It’s quite simple logic.
Let me ask you, by your own philosophy, what would you reaction be if you came upon a woman who was being raped? Would you violently defend her, like would be necessary. Or would you abstain from being violent in exchange for passiveness in order to show that you are not like the rapist?
You assert that violence begets violence, but quite clearly violence in this case would stop violence.
Same with the U.S. If we don’t defend ourselves, then violence will continue no matter what we choose to do otherwise.
> If this is so, then do it to him not to the innocent people of
>Afghanistan!
How is it possible to obtain Bin laden on his won territory without risking unintentional causalities?
Do the people of the United States mean anything to you? Does it matter to you that millions of people are being intentionally attacked and you would rather risk having that continue in the exchange for the absolute assuredness that no Afghanis are unintentionally killed?
If so, then you have a great degree of growing up to do.
> A 'just' war, I think it was an American who gave us the quote
> "fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity".
>Wake up & smell the burning flesh.
Oh really? I’m quite sure the Jews would agree, and most every other regime that was brought to its knees through war would agree as well.
It’s a snazzy sound bite, but it lacks little truth.
Of course any war fought without clear strategy and intent is going to result in a mindless, unending fight, but most anytime force has been used with intent on ending oppression it has commonly done so.
Again, most of the sentiments you are expressing are derived form the Vietnam War era, which was a disaster. However, it says little about the proper uses of war and conflict in order to stop violent regimes. Viet Nam was fought without clear and concise purpose.
In fact Frontline, a liberally backed program on publicly run television here in the U.S., just ran a program on the history of terrorism in the U.S., and it clearly showed that any time we toyed with responding to terrorist acts they only increased in intensity, and when Reagan finally had the guts to attack Kadafhi with ruthless force, he sent him underground.
Not responding with force to this event will only increase the violence, not stem it, and history shows this, undoubtedly.
> I love this real world, let's just push that button & end it
>for once & for all.
Oh God, the sky is falling the sky is falling! It’s these childlike sentiments that keep us stunted and chasing our tails.
But it does display one thing. It displays the underlying intensity of your own personal fear and irrational towards conflict, and shows that this might not really be about preserving the lives of Afghanis for you, but about making you, yourself feel comfy and safe. You’re simply scared, and you allow your own fear to be put in front of the safety of millions. You don’t have to agree. I’ve had carbon copied arguments with people exactly like you, who tell us what we “shouldn’t” do based on some tailored made moral, instead of answering the question of what we “should” do.
And as expected you have condemned and rallied your feelings for opposition, but have done little to explain them, or rationalize them to where they can be applied to the reality of our current situation.
You have not answered the key questions, and have simply sensationalized the U.S position based upon your own personal bias toward it.
> If stating the truth about war is being derogatory then I'm guilty as charged.
Oh, and what is the truth about war? I’m sure many military historians in general would like to know the elusive answer.
Tell us the story of Germany, Italy, The Middle East, and Africa. Tell us about American independence. Go on. Tell us the truth young son.
It’s nice you feel comfortable asserting absolute truth at a time like this. Simply stating that’s something is true and proving it are two different things, and you have done little in the way of proving your point. You have emoted and rung your hand, but little of anything sensible has exited your keyboard.
> What do you want me to say about bin laden? I've stated he
> should be tried & if found guilty of the attrocity of Sept'
> 11th then he should pay the penalty decided by the courts. I've
> not said that bush/blair should be charged with the murder they
> are committing but I think you are right & thank you for
>pointing that out.
And in what manner are we going to obtain Bin Laden so that he can be tried justly and? The U.S. position has always been dead or alive. If he comes into custody peacefully then he will be tried. Obviously he doesn’t want to do so, so he must be obtained through force.
Again, you conveniently bypass logic to assert your ideology of peace.
> I told you I bow down to your superior knowledge, although you
> appear very selective about which points to argue back with but
> fortunately you open up with even greater arguements as to why
> we shouldn't be at war, obviously inadvertantly unless you are
>playing devils' advocate.
Sadly, if this is the case, you have done little to highlight or to defend such points, and instead make your opinion, and position seem all the more childlike, illogical, idealistic, and naïve.
I’m sure all those who would eventually die from the employment of your philosophy would be very grateful for your defense of it.
> I don't hate the west, east, north or south. Once again I'll
> state I love the World it's just the evil b**tards that have
Ø brainwashed you that I hate.
Let’s speak of the evil bastards who have brainwashed you since it is your position that is the unbalanced and unrealistic one. You have simply stated ideology, not rational, and expressed as much by not answering important questions about history and current events.
> May I suggest that should you wish to carry on this 'discussion'
> with me then that we do it by email & not bother everyone
>else here with 'our' petty squabbling.
And why would that be? So that your naiveté and ill thought out position cannot continually be trounced by common sense?
> Understanding is the key word, not excuses but understanding of
> all the events. Murder shouldn't be a solution or an option by
>any side.
It is obvious that your definition of murder is simply your own and not backed by common law or logical deduction. Again, if someone was trying to kill you, by your own logic, you would not be just in killing them because “murder” in any sense is wrong, and violent action that results in death through self defense is “murder.” You have essentially destroyed your own ability to preserve yourself through your own philosophy.
Do you see how blind ideology that cannot be compromised is essentially rendered useless in certain cases?
Were the Nazi’s justly killed to save the Jews? If your answer is no, please, just place a plastic bag over your head, and end your inability to cope with the harsh realties of the human world.
Violence exists and will always exist. There is violence that serves a purpose and there is violence that serves merely the notion of violence for the pure enjoyment of wanting someone oppressed.
If you don’t know which side we’re on then you have done little to try and understand.
Re: more from the nutty slack brigade
By heck you know how to win friends & influence people. Before I even attempt to answer your posting will it even be looked at by a person who states that I'm...
1. Emotionally weak.
2. A pacifist. [obviously didn't read my last email 'fighting the nazis']
3. Wrapped up in a fancy notion of peace.
4. Naive.
5. Flawed.
6. Opposed to sensible reaction.
7. Disturbed in my understanding of the human mind.
8. Of limited comprehention.
9. Completely simplistic & naive.
10. Appalling understanding of military strategies.
11. Stretching the bounds of sensibility and logic.
12. Unsensible.
13. Ideologically desperate.
14. Of a religion of sentiment, a fantasy of mankind born from a weakness.
15. Unrealistic.
16. In need of a great deal of growing up.
17. Childlike in my sentiments.
18. Irrational.
19. Sensationalist.
20. Personally biased.
21. A young son. [is that meant to demeanour me?]
22. Emoted and rung my hand, but little of anything sensible has exited from my keyboard. [touché]
23. Logically bypassed.
24. Childlike, illogical, idealistic, and naïve.
25. Unbalanced and unrealistic.
26. Of naiveté and ill thought out position.
27. Of blind ideology.
But anyway here goes...
> There is a difference between creating unintentional casualties
> due to a self-defense operation and strictly focusing on
> civilians as a means to promote your religious or political
> motive.
Well that obviously makes it right then!
> If indeed there have been civilian casualties, and of course
> there are going to be some, there is nothing to indicate
> whatsoever that they were, in any way, intentionally targeted
> like those on Sept. 11.
There are civillian casualties, U.N. people (dead) & an hospital almost hit, now I'm aware of propaganda & therefore it would be far more useful for the propagandists (does that scan?) to claim an hospital as been hit. I've never claimed 'intentional' targets, what I was stating was that war kills people intentionally or not, what kind of a war has there been without killings? War is not the answer (sheesh I'm sounding like Marvin Gaye)
> The sentiment that you are expressing is one of emotional
> weakness. You simply cannot accept the fact that mankind is
> inherently violent, and that sometimes violence in return is
> required to end the violent actions of a perpetrator.
I've no problem with your notion of 'inherent' violent tendencies, I've a problem with killing innocent kids, please read my posts previous.
> To continually assert that by displaying passivity that we are
> somehow going to overthrow a terrorist ring that exists in over
> 60 countries, is not only naive, but should be personally
> offensive to those who lost loved ones on Sept. 11, and those
> who currently reside in America. In essence what you are saying
> is that we should take the long, unrealistic shot of setting an
> example of passiveness in exchange for the more urgent
> likelihood that it will mean absolutely nothing to those who
> carried out these attacks, and do nothing to cure the current
> problem that we are in.
I've never displayed passivity, please read my posts previous. I've been imprisoned twice for my political beliefs, in no way am I a pacifist, my 'inherent' violent tendencies provent me from being so ideolgical. When the neo nazis marched through my home town I was there 'on the frontline', the problem was that our police force protected them. We all need to try & understand what lay behind the attrocities of Sept' 11th, we need to get to the root of the problem. I understand the great wealth of anger, I was equally angered too by the great loss of life. That is why I've stated those responsible ought to be brought to justice, please read my posts previous. May I make it perfectly understood I totally condem those acts of indiscriminate violence against masses of human beings, there can be no justification for it.
> Quite astonishing.
What is?
> You are so completely wrapped up in the fancy notion of peace as
> an absolute that it clouds your ability to make circumstantial
> decisions about the safety of millions of people. That's why
> people in these situations make the decisions that they do, and
> choose to defend themselves because they can no longer play to
> their ideals without risking the lives of many people and their
> own as well.
I missed 'Clouded ability' of your description of me. The safety of millions is exactly my concern, I've no allegiance to any terrorists but I do have to my fellow human beings what ever country they live (& die) in.
> It is another reason why ideological political movements never
> gain any significant power, or thereby crumble, because there is
> a degree of compromise in personal beliefs when real world
> decisions need to be made.
Capitalism, is that not a political ideology? It developed a couple of centuries ago by overthrowing the ideology of the day Feudalism.
> By speaking out alone, you risk no burden of having millions of
> people killed by your own opinion, therefore, you feel quite
> comfortable asserting this ideal. For at the very least, you
> would only appear as naive, and actually not having to possess
> the blood of millions on your hands.
I'm speaking out alone in here in answer to that numbty 'punchdrunk's' disgusting posts, I don't recommend you read his though but should you wish to see the complete picture then I assume you must. I could try emailing your president or my prime minister & asking them to pass on the message to 'punchdrunk' for me but if I did that I would then add confirmation to your opinion of me. (see above 27. points, or 28. if we include 'Clouded ability'). I'm not shirking my responsibility of 'washing the blood off my hands', it is my nation too that is doing the bombing, please read my posts previous.
> Violence serves a purpose. As long as human beings express
> violence, violence will be necessary in order to stop it. If we
> had simply employed your philosophy in the past, you would be
> speaking German right now, and the world as we know would not
> likely exist today. And this here, is your key flaw, like some
> many others who use the same philosophy as you do to oppose
> sensible reaction. Your understanding of the human mind in
> general is quite disturbing if you think everyone can be spoken
> to rationally in regards to peace through diplomacy or therapy
> alone.
So tell me what is my philosophy? I learnt a bit of german at school but I'd not manage a conversation in it. Fascism is the bastard son of Capitalism, it's about competition & being the best competitors at the expense of others, unless of course you know a different Capitalism to me?
> It also shows that your comprehension of Bin Alden, and Al Qaeda
> is extremely limited, for diplomacy in this instance does not
> apply to the motives that they are guided by.
Would you care to enlighten me to what their motives are, please?
> But then again, you are not the president of a country, or a
> chief military strategist in charge of defending millions of
> people, so what do you have to lose? Surely the prospect of a
> demolished country doesn't place any sense of urgency or
> sensibility within your thoughts.
No I'm not a president or chief military strategist, I'm an ordinary person who supported what a member or my countries parliament said & stated so to another poster in this forum who made disgusting insinuations about her.
> This is again, a completely simplistic, naïve response to a very
> complex action. The airports are a military target because they
> allow the access of terrorist allies to gain entry and exit form
> the country. This is quite obvious. The point of bombing
> strategic sites is not to bomb individuals alone, but to bomb
> access to supplies, and travel. Your understanding of military
> strategy is quite appalling, and I think you should think before
> you speak, unless of course it is intentional. And alas, where
> my friend is it written that bombing strategic sites that allow
> mobility and communication is ineffective military strategy?
O.K. I hold my hand up, I'm sorry please forgive me I'll take your point on board about the airports in the cities as military targets. As you have pointed out I'm no military strategist.
> I think the allies in WW2 would disagree with you, for that has
> always been a staple of military strategy.
Did I deny this about ww2, I can't remember my post, maybe I should read my previous posts.
> So, I think it is you who misses the point. You are simply
> stretching the bounds of sensibility and logic so you can
> continue to assert your religious, unmovable notion of
> passivity.
My point is oppositon to war. I've no religious unmoveable notion of passivity, this is all your assumptions. I'm an Atheist if that helps you better in your understanding of me.
> Uncompromisable ideology like yours is what has brought us to
> this point, not the opposite. In the real world you have to make
> compromised decisions. You have to make utilitarian like
> decisions, and weigh the pros and cons of your effort, not
> simply swipe your hand and proclaim it wrong no matter what is
> at stake.
I think you'll find it's Capitalism that has actually brought us to this point, for people of a like mind as I are in the minority & have not got any buttons to be pressed, thay are in your hands.
> The U.S. indeed has been giving aid to Afghanistan before the
> attacks occurred, and it’s a shame you don’t do proper research
> before you stick your neck out in a debate. A more sensible
> person would have simply refrained form responding.
May I take this opportunity to post selective pieces of information too? Who was it that as imposed inhuman & brutal policies across much or the third world. How about this too, the human costs of those policies, more than half a million children in Iraq, houndreds of thousands in East Timour & many others in the Balkans, Palestine, the Congo, central America & of course Afghanistan. Osama bin laden & the taliban, were armed & trained by? Yes you've guessed it the U.S. & it's allies including the U.K. (my country).
> I am also amused that you somehow feel that your government run
> television is somehow more effective at uncovering the “truth.”
> .supply when hospitals need it, when the education sytem needs
> it, why's that?
I don't hink that at all & just because it's a corporate instituion doesn't mean that it's govt run but that's an arguement of little or no impotance at the moment so I will accept your understanding of it.
You seem to have over looked my arguement for peaceful funding of health & education coming second to the funding of destruction.
> What does this have to do with our decision to defend our own
> country against terrorism?
What health & education, der I dunno who needs health & education.(sorry for being sarcastic)
> Domestic governments have been oppressing people in Africa and
> the Middle East, and the rest of the world for ages, not the
> United States, though it is convenient for you to continue to
> proclaim our guilt, while not showing any concern for those
> governments in other countries who insist on oppressing their
> own people.
See my selective informative points above then you will discove it was us & the world bank thaty were actually with our puppets who oppress.
> Simply giving the same amount of money to world poverty that we
> have spent on this military effort is not going to cure world
> poverty because it is only alleviating a temporary need, not
> along term one, which is the development of democratic
> governments and the allowance of economic interest to be built
> through that democracy.
& just how did you manage to calculate that? 1 stealth bomber is more than most 3rd world countries GNP. I'm in total support of your arguement that what we need are democratic govt' & economic assistance etc needed in every country. So why do we train & arm undemocratic puppets to smash growing democracies, see who trained & armed the taliban & bin laden above.
> I do not, in any way, consider myself a champion of
> globalization by any means, but I do see those who oppose the
> notion, as merely attempting to promote their own extreme
> collectivist ideals, instead of caring directly for poverty and
> the lack of jobs in third world countries.
I'm a champion of globalization, we are the world we are the people (sheesh I'm beginning to sound like Michael Jackson)
> If a third world nation wants free trade, and wants economic
> opportunity, then let them have it, and leave Marx out of it.
> The anti-globalization movement is not about caring for the
> oppression of the poor but making sure that the idea of extreme
> collectivism isn’t dealt it’s final death blow by it.
Did I mention Marx? One of the best Marx quotes I know "I never forget a face but in your case I'll make an exception" [Groucho Marx]
But on a more serious note why should we leave Marx out of it, his vision based on a massive amount of research should not go unmentioned. I think you are going to now mention peoples interpretations of it being misguided, or even mine, though I realize I shouldn't make assumptions.
> Nevertheless globalization is inevitable, and it might be the
> only strong link to any serious notions of peace. Money speaks
> more to people than any religious ideology does. No matter how
> much OPEC despises us, they still need us to by oil from them or
> they would be erased.
Bread is tastier than money, a house provides better warmth & security than camping under a wallet. Clean drinking water is more appealing than any notion of a god. Unless you know better. All you state is a means to buy those items, isn't it a sad fact that althoughs things I've mentioned have been turned into commodities obtainable only by those with the money to purchase them.
> Besides, when you have a country you have people within its own
> borders that you must first concern yourself with, before you
> can plan on curing the rest of the world’s problems.
This implies a seperate world, either you want globalization or not, or does globalization to you mean the opening up of more markets to which you can flog your wares (of course only to those who've got the money). Ideologically we should not then be bombing our potential future markets. Capitalism is at odds here, it wants seperate nation states yet it wants one market. Seperate nations then can be used to compete against each other, logical conclusion war & war is stupid (now I'm boy George).
> You can simplify it and call so and so a devil, but it doesn’t
> change the fact that the most serious problems of poverty are
> related to socio-economic, religious, and political ideology,
> not simply allowing people to do, for the most part, what they
> want with their lives.
Exactly, I've not called anyone a devil btw. Who controls the socio-economies & political ideologies of these oppressive nations. Yes puppets supported by the world bank.
> Your comment in regards to that was pointless and displayed
> nothing but ideological desperation.
Oh, ok.
> The news black outs seem to be coming from your own end. Maybe
> having a building topple where you reside will hasten your
> realization. Until then, feel perfectly warm and cozy beneath
> your blanket of passivity.
I cannot confirm or deny what black outs I've got up my own end? I live on the outskirts of Manchester so I've a realization of what it is like, admittedly & most fortunately no one was killed by the bombing of Manchester by the I.R.A. My sister works in Manchester & she was working that day, she is still feeling the shocks from it having lost the shop she worked in at the time, which was in the Manchester Corn Exchange building, which is next to the Marks & Spencers building that had the car bomb parked next to. So don't talk to me about comfy blankets, thank you very much.
> And I’m sure the “truth” will be in the form of some great
> American conspiracy to take over the Islamic world and oppress
> the poor.
If you have that eveidence then bring it to light.
> How can you make such an assertion without even being in America
> right now? How do you know what is appearing on American news
> networks and what they are discussing. It seems you have made a
> great leap of faith in your assertion.
I wasn't in nazi germany or Poland during the 1940's but I know of the attrocities that happened there.
> Notice the quaintly placed “bloodlust” sloganeering that
> generally precedes every comment about American media portrayal
> that is so far from the truth that it is laughable.
I can't quite remember exactly what I posted but I think it was about the U.K. press to be honest concerning the Falklands war we had over here. I have no doubt that you are right though & your American press are also baying for blood. That's not funny.
> The fact is our minds are free and opened. It is yours that is
> simply falling back on an uncompromisable ideology that you
> probably learned in University.
The only university I've been to is the University of life my friend, not that it's any of your business I failed my 11+ exam here & I attended a Church Secondary Modern school, I left at 15 years of age with 6 c.s.e's (certificate of secondary education) to my name, hardly worth the paper they are written on. One thing I did learn from having a church education was the ideology of Atheism, so it wasn't a total waste of time was it.
> I voted for Ralph Nader for Christ Sakes, and I’m supporting
> this military effort. If that isn’t an open, compromisable mind
> for you, then I don’t know what is. I don’t see my political
> opinions as ideological and applicable to every scenario, thus
> allowing me to see things circumstantially and based on logical
> deductions.
I'm sorry to admit my ignorance of the last U.S. presidential election, but it got to be so farcical that I lost interest in it. So I don't understand the 'I voted Ralph Nader' significance?
You see your opinions & ideology as what you have been taught & are not questioning it enough, your only logical conclusions are drawn up from these learnt opinions & ideologies. Maybe you went to University & that's what they taught you in order for you to succeed in this world without question, or to only question rhetorically.
> I wish you could free your mind from personal and political
> ideology, and do the same.
How can I, I'm a person who lives in a political world, unless you are suggesting I become some kind of hippy & drop out, I'll consider it but long hair doesn't suit me, I remember the 1970's.
> What you speak of is a religion of sentiment, a fantasy of
> mankind born from a weakness in accepting the reality of man’s
> inherent nature.
See here's my lack of a University education shing through in all it's glory, I haven't the foggiest notion what you mean, please could you put it in more of a lay mans terminology.
> You don’t want the world to be a certain way so you desperately
> wish that we react in a manner that best suits you emotionally,
> never stopping to wonder if it is even realistic.
Yes, I think you are right, I want you to react in a manner that best suits my emotions, in what way do you want me to react to you? Surely realism is subjective & you object to my version of reality.
> The obvious fact is, is that Bin Laden’s mission and our mission
> are not relative upon each other’s intent. We are protecting
> ourselves and he is attacking us. It’s quite simple logic.
No you see once again, another point missed or chosen to be ignored, I've never said that bin laden should not be brought to justice, or whoever else perpetrates such attrocities. I said I'm against the murder of innocent people although I think I may have put only kids, I'm opposed to innocent of any people young or old by anyone.
> Let me ask you, by your own philosophy, what would you reaction
> be if you came upon a woman who was being raped? Would you
> violently defend her, like would be necessary. Or would you
> abstain from being violent in exchange for passiveness in order
> to show that you are not like the rapist?
Of course I'd go & help the person being raped but I wouldn't do it by punching anyone else who happened to be in the vicinity. Yes I'd use violence against the perpetrator of the violence, I'll state again I've no problems with the capturing of bin laden or any terrorists being brought to justice. I'm not a pacifist, (grrr I'm gonna punch the next person that implies I am - see what more proof do you need).
> You assert that violence begets violence, but quite clearly
> violence in this case would stop violence.
So o.k. let me run this one by you... some little kid in Afghanistan suvives the war (unless you are suggesting extermination of the total population, which clearly I'm assuming you are not), his parents wern't quite so lucky, before the war he hated bin laden & the taliban because he had a crappy life, now he's seen the Allied forces murder his mam & dad, do you think that there's not even the slightest possibility he could grow up with a slight resentment to the perpretators of the killing of his parents? It could just possibly nudge him over the edge & he then looks to organisations that wish to enact revenge. Damn we've got another possible attrocity on our hands.
> Same with the U.S. If we don’t defend ourselves, then violence
> will continue no matter what we choose to do otherwise.
I have nothing against self defence, it's the innocents that you are going to kill in that defece that worries me.
> How is it possible to obtain Bin laden on his won territory
> without risking unintentional causalities?
Try military intelligence, but as you pointed out my military intelligence wouldn't fill a tuppence-appney stamp in block capital letters. Use ecomomic pressure etc. Offer a forum to discuss the problems of the world & don't walk out like spoilt children.
> Do the people of the United States mean anything to you? Does it
> matter to you that millions of people are being intentionally
> attacked and you would rather risk having that continue in the
> exchange for the absolute assuredness that no Afghanis are
> unintentionally killed?
Yes once again I love the people of America, I married one of them, please read my posts previous. Who knows one day when you can finally get a grip on the obbsession some of your fellow country men have with guns then I might one day become your neighbour.
> If so, then you have a great degree of growing up to do.
Haven't we all got a lot of growing up to do, maybe it's more nostalgia the world seemed a better place when I viewed it through childs eyes. When disputes could be sorted by 'paper, stone & scissors', but that's far to childish let's be grown up about it & use weapons of mass destruction.
> Oh really? I’m quite sure the Jews would agree, and most every
> other regime that was brought to its knees through war would
> agree as well.
What would they agree to?
> It’s a snazzy sound bite, but it lacks little truth.
In which way does it lack the truth?
> Of course any war fought without clear strategy and intent is
> going to result in a mindless, unending fight, but most anytime
> force has been used with intent on ending oppression it has
> commonly done so.
How's Iraq these days?
> Again, most of the sentiments you are expressing are derived
> form the Vietnam War era, which was a disaster. However, it says
> little about the proper uses of war and conflict in order to
> stop violent regimes. Viet Nam was fought without clear and
> concise purpose.
I don't recall mentioning the Vietnam war, which agreed was & still is a disaster, what was it 13 years in the making & a quarter of a century after the Americans run away from it the country is still feeling the effects.
> In fact Frontline, a liberally backed program on publicly run
> television here in the U.S., just ran a program on the history
> of terrorism in the U.S., and it clearly showed that any time we
> toyed with responding to terrorist acts they only increased in
> intensity, and when Reagan finally had the guts to attack
> Kadafhi with ruthless force, he sent him underground.
How's Libia these days?
> Not responding with force to this event will only increase the
> violence, not stem it, and history shows this, undoubtedly.
Examples please? When as a war ever erradicated such events?
> Oh God, the sky is falling the sky is falling! It’s these
> childlike sentiments that keep us stunted and chasing our tails.
I was being facetious & I apologize.
> But it does display one thing. It displays the underlying
> intensity of your own personal fear and irrational towards
> conflict, and shows that this might not really be about
> preserving the lives of Afghanis for you, but about making you,
> yourself feel comfy and safe. You’re simply scared, and you
> allow your own fear to be put in front of the safety of
> millions. You don’t have to agree. I’ve had carbon copied
> arguments with people exactly like you, who tell us what we
> “shouldn’t” do based on some tailored made moral, instead of
> answering the question of what we “should” do.
Yes of course I'm scared, who wouldn't be? Are you suggesting that you are not afraid of war? I'm not aware that it is irrational to be afraid of war, I think it would be opposite actually. It is the safety of millions that I oppose war, that's why I said it in the first place.
What exactly is a person just like me but not quite me (oh no I've become Marshall Mathers the 3rd, "all you other Grim O'Gradys are just imitating").
Here you go then get this...
WE SHOULD STOP KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE. Loud enough?
> And as expected you have condemned and rallied your feelings for
> opposition, but have done little to explain them, or rationalize
> them to where they can be applied to the reality of our current
> situation.
Phewwwwwww!!!! What rational person can commit murder?
> You have not answered the key questions, and have simply
> sensationalized the U.S position based upon your own personal
> bias toward it.
Why are you so up your own arse? My original post was directed to another U.K. (I'm loathe to say) person. This war is not just you Americans you know, there are U.K. planes bombing the Afghanistan cities too, unless your news reports don't inform you & if that is so then I take back the 'up your own arse' comment.
> Oh, and what is the truth about war? I’m sure many military
> historians in general would like to know the elusive answer.
That people get killed, see I'm a genius.
> Tell us the story of Germany, Italy, The Middle East, and
> Africa. Tell us about American independence. Go on. Tell us the
> truth young son.
What's this you want education my boy, you gotta pay!!! Send cheques, postal orders etc.
Btw I'm 39 so thanks for the 'young son', made my day.
> It’s nice you feel comfortable asserting absolute truth at a
> time like this. Simply stating that’s something is true and
> proving it are two different things, and you have done little in
> the way of proving your point. You have emoted and rung your
> hand, but little of anything sensible has exited your keyboard.
I love that last line, don't agree with it mind you. So absolute truth, is there any thing that is absolute truth? I dunno to be honest, absolutely. But try me, what do you want proof of specifically?
> And in what manner are we going to obtain Bin Laden so that he
> can be tried justly and? The U.S. position has always been dead
> or alive. If he comes into custody peacefully then he will be
> tried. Obviously he doesn’t want to do so, so he must be
> obtained through force.
Oh I thought we'd been through that one see my reply about half a mile back up this page.
> Again, you conveniently bypass logic to assert your ideology of
> peace.
Oh how did I do that please tell me?
> Sadly, if this is the case, you have done little to highlight or
> to defend such points, and instead make your opinion, and
> position seem all the more childlike, illogical, idealistic, and
> naïve.
Oh how did I do that please tell me?
> I’m sure all those who would eventually die from the employment
> of your philosophy would be very grateful for your defense of
> it.
> Ø brainwashed you that I hate.
What? I know it's late but wake up & pay attention, tell me what you mean.
> Let’s speak of the evil bastards who have brainwashed you since
> it is your position that is the unbalanced and unrealistic one.
> You have simply stated ideology, not rational, and expressed as
> much by not answering important questions about history and
> current events.
Oh how did I do that please tell me?
> And why would that be? So that your naiveté and ill thought out
> position cannot continually be trounced by common sense?
Oh how did I do that please tell me?
> It is obvious that your definition of murder is simply your own
> and not backed by common law or logical deduction. Again, if
> someone was trying to kill you, by your own logic, you would not
> be just in killing them because “murder” in any sense is wrong,
> and violent action that results in death through self defense is
> “murder.” You have essentially destroyed your own ability to
> preserve yourself through your own philosophy.
Killing someone by accident in self defence that they tried to kill me, isn't murder. Bombing a country & killing someone innocent is murder. Going out & intentionally trying to kill someone but in the act you kill someone else who's innocent is not murder by your own admissions is a tad flawed wouldn't you say.
> Do you see how blind ideology that cannot be compromised is
> essentially rendered useless in certain cases?
Have you been to the opticians recently, talk of blind ideology.
> Were the Nazi’s justly killed to save the Jews? If your answer
> is no, please, just place a plastic bag over your head, and end
> your inability to cope with the harsh realties of the human
> world.
No problem with killing nazis (more proof I'm not a pacifist) What I would have opposed at the time was the blanket bombing of german cities, not everyone in germany was a nazi. Btw thanks for the handy tip should I ever change my mind though.
> Violence exists and will always exist. There is violence that
> serves a purpose and there is violence that serves merely the
> notion of violence for the pure enjoyment of wanting someone
> oppressed.
When I was born I wasn't born to kill, it's the socio-economic pressures that have made me like this. I believe I was born a pacifist but I've been nutured to be like I am now.
> If you don’t know which side we’re on then you have done little
> to try and understand.
I know which side I'm on & it's the side opposed to killing!
Good luck in your quest for the truth, I suggest you look elsewhere for a change & open up your mind to other ideas, you are allowed to question your authorities just beware that sometimes the only answer you'll get hurts.
Love life & peace
Grim O'Grady
Re: more from the nutty slack brigade
I'm at work for the next 24 & a half hours so you've plenty of time to respond.
Miss ya
love life & peace
Grim O'Grady
P.s. I'm open to email for carrying on this debate, should you prefer.
Re: nutty slack
> Why should I backtrack? According to the news here there's
> already been civilians killed, so does that not mean innocent
> kids? I don't know if you are getting a news 'black out' in
> America.
It almost seems you are praying for some innocent victims
of the attacks so you can hold them up
for your political purposes. Look how quickly
you jump on the vaguest of reports. The fact is, we don't know
squat right now, except that thousands and thousands
of innocent people have died, and are suffering and
will die, because of the bin Laden network and the Taliban.
As I said before, so long as no innocents are targeted,
and every reasonable precaution is taken to prevent
accidental deaths of innocents, and the military strategy
is soundly designed to bring justice and remove the imminent threat,
if a handful of civilians are accidentally killed that is a very
tragic but unavoidable result that will save far more
innocent civilian lives. If, when the dust settles,
it is revealed that our leaders acted immorally in our names,
I would condemn that. IF, OTOH, Afghani cheer the downfall of the Taliban, what will you say? (BTW, I condemned Bill Clinton's reckless
attack on a Sudan medicine factory before he confirmed
whether it was a legit target; in 1998 I posted messages on this very Morrissey board over that, and I don't recall a single one of the leftist extremists making appearances today backing me up. And is today the first day you have ever publicly expressed concern over
the fates of innocent afghan children?)
We know that to allow the Taliban and the terrorist
network to continue to exist would ensure further mass
murders on an ever-escalating scale, and therefore to
respond with pacifism would be to support the mass murder
of thousands and thousands of innocent people. Since
you offer no suggestions on how we should respond,
I am assuming you believe we should respond with
non-action, or at least non-military action. That would
aid the enemy, making it an evil position to take IMO.
> You still miss the point, bombing doesn't work unless you bomb
> the nation to nothing, eg Dresden, Germany ww11.
> Since when as an airport been a military target? How does an
> airport oppress anyone?
I am not schooled in military strategy or privy to the data
which went into the forming of the strategy going on now, so unlike you I won't post any half-baked declarations about military
strategy here. However, off the top of my head I can
think of logical reasons to attack airports. Airports
allow the Taliban to use military planes. A couple
days before the bombing the Taliban flew near a populated
area and dropped a cluster bomb in a show of force. If we
are going to send people in to take the terrorists
to justice, as you yourself claim to support doing,
it seems to me we ought to control the airspace.
Which will allow our spy planes to fly without fear,
and allow air support for the Northern Allaince, and
so on.
I'm sure there are several other reasons to take
out airports in an effort to disrupt the power of
the Taliban and the effectiveness of the terrorist
network, but I'll leave such matters to experts
and judge them by their results.
> Shame really that so much aid wasn't deemed necessary before the
> war, possible solution to the nation of Afghanistan overthrowing
> their ruling class. Oh about the irport being bombed I saw it
> reported on the b.b.c. hardly bin ladens news network, we don't
> get that here.
Aid has been given in the past. But that's really not
something worth discussing at the moment. Shame about a lot of things
we did and didn't do through all of our history, the pointing
out of which does nothing to subdue the enemy before us today.
> Thanks for telling me how good the world (U.S.) bank is,
> starving kids love to eat the good old green back dollars, very
> nutritious!
It's funny that you find a Taliban issued report of 20 civilian
deaths more credible than the very logical expectation that
when the world economy is harmed people die in great numbers. It seems less logical that innocent civilians hang out at terrorist
training camps.
That's not to say there is not an expectation
that some tragedies will occur during the bombing. Yet I find it odd the way you are so policially selective about which civilian deaths you are willing to take the time to express your outrage fully and clearly over.
>The slight issue you seem to have over looked or not
> been aware of is that the econmic world wide crisis that was
> already looming pre Sept' 11th.
The numbers clearly show a devastating economic impact caused
by Sept. 11, and your denial of this damages your credibility
both on commenting on current events generally and your
claims for concern over the death of innocent children.
Quit using "innocent children" for propaganda purposes, please.
>Mind you another sickening fact
> is that there's always money avialable for war but it's in short
> supply when hospitals need it, when the education sytem needs
> it, why's that?
Defense is the first and most important job of any government.
The reason it is harder to fund education and medical care
is because there are great political debates over the best
way to fund such things, while this attack is an urgent crisis
that the country is united over. 90% of America supports the
current military action, so the president was given
a great big pile of money. If 90% of America supported
a particular health care policy, the same would happen.
If you care so much about medical care and education, consider
the fact that women under the Taliban are rarely allowed
any medical care at all, because male doctors are not allowed
to treat females and females are not allowed to be doctors.
Also, 95% of Afghanistan is illiterate.
> I see there's an old news black out on your version of modern
> history too. See above Dresden comment for the answer to that.
> Yes but if you READ what you said you told me I was
> anti-american ONLY.
> When the truth comes out I will be glad to have you walk at my
> side.
This "when the truth comes out" comment amuses me. Apparently
you have infortmation no one else does? No, again it is your
assumption that anything America does is by definition immoral,
which is why you didn't need to wait for America to actually
do anything before accusing them of murdering innocent children.
> I understand you clumping bin laden & his cronies as
> fascists, fascism grew out of the middle classes frustration
> & hatred of communism in the late 1910's in Italy. The
> system (capitalism) was in crisis (whoops how's it doing at the
> moment)
What is the point behind your gleefully typed "whoops how's it doing
at the moment" comment?
>, so that's the origins of fascism, hitler took it
> through to it's logical conclusion & illogical conclusion
> too. He wanted to rid the world of communists, jews,
> homosexuals, disabled (mentally & physical) black people
> & anyone who disagreed with him or made him feel inferior.
> Salman Rushdie, a middle class geezer with an axe to grind, he
> wrote a trilogy one third of it was called 'the satanic verses'
> yep I'll listen to him all night long. *yawn*.
He's not gung-ho for war. He takes, it would seem to me, a
middle ground stance.
I don't know why you feel the need to call him a geezer.
I just thought he made interesting comments about
anti-American reaction to the attack on America, and
a beautiful declration of what we in the secular democratic
world have to stand up for. It really isn't an essay that
fans the flames of war; I just thought it was
thoughtful and worth looking at. Someone who "thinks for himself"
should not shut out points of view so prejudicially.
And what do you mean when you dismiss him because, apparently,
you dislike the title of one of his novels?
>What I've tried
> to get you to understand is to think for yourself, I know it
> must be difficult with all this war mongering talk/jokes etc etc
> going on,
Your assumption that any time a person backs military action
(btw, technically this is not a war on America's side; we have not declared war on any nation) is not thinking for himself
is silly. If thinking for myself is just accusing every
move the civilized world takes as trying to "murder innocent
children" while not having the faintest idea what we should
really be doing, well that is thinking for yourself and
you probably feel so lonely with that view because
it's stupid.
>we had the same over here during the Falkland war,
> most people (I included) hadn't a clue where the feck the
> Falklands was at the time. But you get all the press (the same
> as now) with their blood lust, national patriotism is what they
> call it.
I've been aware of the Taliban. Clinton often mentioned
them in speeches, and bin Laden has been big news for
at least 5 years. Furthermore, I have been aware of
the Islamic fundamentalist threat for my entire life,
and for the past 10 years have viewed them as the single greatest enemy humanity has at the moment.
> How very sad & sorry I feel for you for that murderous
> comment, bin laden would no doubt wish to quote you on that.
Is your problem that you have some automatic reaction against any
use of a *bomb* in any situation? Are you able
to concieve of situations where the dropping of bombs
is the right thing to do? It seems like to you the act of allowing an explosive device to fall from an airplane is absolutely wrong no matter what. No matter what it is aimed at, how well it can be aimed, no matter what it's objective. Is that your position?
> If this is so, then do it to him not to the innocent people of
> Afghanistan!
That appears to be the gameplan.
> A 'just' war, I think it was an American who gave us the quote
> "fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity".
> Wake up & smell the burning flesh.
Nice catch phrases, little substance. (I'll put these with the shallow slogan "Fred Flintsonted" posted to me the other day - "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.")
> I love this real world, let's just push that button & end it
> for once & for all.
You have a tendency to say we're doing something which we
are not in fact doing at all, and then condemning us for it.
You're really rather ridiculous, and not at all serious
about what we should do in the current state of events.
> If stating the truth about war is being derogatory then I'm
> guilty as charged. I didn't answer the original post to the (in
> my opinion) very offensive numbty who goes by the name of
> punchdrunk to appear likeable to him or anyone else for that
> matter.
> What do you want me to say about bin laden? I've stated he
> should be tried & if found guilty of the attrocity of Sept'
> 11th then he should pay the penalty decided by the courts.
But you have no suggestions about how to do this, which means
you are not serious. Also, it's a bit more than one man who is the enemy.
>I've
> not said that bush/blair should be charged with the murder they
> are committing but I think you are right & thank you for
> pointing that out.
Again, you're not a serious person about this situation.
> It's illegal for people to steal a loaf of bread over here even
> if they are starving, English common law, the laws are made by
> & for the ruling classes. It's illegal to drive a car over
> 30 miles per hour in a built up area but it happens ever day.
> I told you I bow down to your superior knowledge, although you
> appear very selective about which points to argue back with but
> fortunately you open up with even greater arguements as to why
> we shouldn't be at war, obviously inadvertantly unless you are
> playing devils' advocate.
> I don't hate the west, east, north or south. Once again I'll
> state I love the World it's just the evil b**tards that have
> brainwashed you that I hate.
> I've stood up to fascism in this country & felt the
> comforting thud from a policemans batton, you see because over
> here in this country the police protect the nazis.
More silliness.
You fail to prove you are not soft on fascism just because you
apparently created a disruption for police who were probably
just trying to stomach the free speech rights of neo-nazis without
any riots breaking out (mere speculations on my part). Soft on fascism is when fascists with power
are causing devastation on masses of people and you sit there
and say we should do nothing about it.
Without knowing any details and knowing you play fast and loose with truth, for all I know you quite deserved
a thud on your head and the police officers were not "defending
nazism" but merely trying to preserve the peace and their own safety. But this is all very irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
> May I suggest that should you wish to carry on this 'discussion'
> with me then that we do it by email & not bother everyone
> else here with 'our' petty squabbling.
> I will provide as many answers as you require, until my fingers
> drop off if necessary or we have some mutual understanding which
> ever is the sooner.
I just wanted to know what you would have us do in response
to the attack.
> Understanding is the key word, not excuses but understanding of
> all the events. Murder shouldn't be a solution or an option by
> any side.
An understanding of events would lead one to take
our enemy at his word as to what he wants to inflict on us, and recognize that they have been fighting
this war they've declared on us, their own people, and all of modern civilization and secularism, for a long time and will
not stop.
> love the World
> Grim O'Grady
> P.s. you never bothered to answer my Dr Who question did you.
That was the bit about the "Exterminate! Exterminate!"? I thought you were being a dodo brain, because it is the person I want to STOP who wants to exterminate people. I might also add that the pacifist response also supports extermination.
Keep crying over the destruction of the terrorist network.
Later!
Re: nutty slack
> Salman Rushdie, a middle class geezer
It's fascinating that you use the label "middle class"
as an insult.
> What do you want me to say about bin laden? I've stated he
> should be tried & if found guilty of the attrocity of Sept'
> 11th then he should pay the penalty decided by the courts. I've
> not said that bush/blair should be charged with the murder they
> are committing but I think you are right & thank you for
> pointing that out.
It's also fascinating that you're not quite sure whether
bin Laden is guilty, even though (1) we know for a fact he
committed past terrorist acts, and (2) there he was on videotape
on Sunday CONFESSING. And there his spokeman was today on
TV CONFESSING. You apply this innocent until proven guilty
in a court of law standard for bin Laden, but you don't apply the same standard to find Bush and Blair guilty of the murder of innocent children in Afghanistan since Sept.11. You are, IOW, insane.
you wind up merchant - here's my abuse
> It almost seems you are praying for some innocent victims
> of the attacks so you can hold them up
> for your political purposes. Look how quickly
> you jump on the vaguest of reports. The fact is, we don't know
> squat right now, except that thousands and thousands
> of innocent people have died, and are suffering and
> will die, because of the bin Laden network and the Taliban.
You f**kwit, total class A golden nugget! Vaguest report, well that's the United Nations for you, vague!
> We know that to allow the Taliban and the terrorist
> network to continue to exist would ensure further mass
> murders on an ever-escalating scale, and therefore to
> respond with pacifism would be to support the mass murder
> of thousands and thousands of innocent people. Since
> you offer no suggestions on how we should respond,
> I am assuming you believe we should respond with
> non-action, or at least non-military action. That would
> aid the enemy, making it an evil position to take IMO.
You f**kwit, the regime that the U.S. funded & armed. I'm sick to the back teeth of you, for the last time I'M NOT A F**KING PACIFIST!
read my previous post! Take bin laden not INNOCENT PEOPLE.
> It's funny that you find a Taliban issued report of 20 civilian
> deaths more credible than the very logical expectation that
> when the world economy is harmed people die in great numbers. It
> seems less logical that innocent civilians hang out at terrorist
> training camps.
Funny it's f**king amazing, as this is news to me, I've not seen the reports from the taliban concerning the 20 civilian deaths. So you are now making up lies about what's in my previous posts. Please try & read them, or forget that f**kwit just make up your own version of my posts.
> That's not to say there is not an expectation
> that some tragedies will occur during the bombing. Yet I find it
> odd the way you are so policially selective about which civilian
> deaths you are willing to take the time to express your outrage
> fully and clearly over.
F**kwit, I am outraged about all civillian deaths. That's not selective.
> The numbers clearly show a devastating economic impact caused
> by Sept. 11, and your denial of this damages your credibility
> both on commenting on current events generally and your
> claims for concern over the death of innocent children.
> Quit using "innocent children" for propaganda
> purposes, please.
F**king credibility damage, yeah well you've come through with shining colours & your credibility is so unquestionable, you sad gung-ho supporter of mass murder. How's that for a credible claim. O.K. here's what you want... I thhink (look I'm stammering now) we should kill all the guilty kids but I still stand by my STOP KILLING INNOCENT KIDS.
> Defense is the first and most important job of any government.
If this is true in America (the United States of) then you truly are a gung-ho nation, because over here during our elections there's not a mention of defence in their manifestos of the main 3 parties, with the possible exception of them diminishing the budgets of the armed forces to save tax payers money.
> The reason it is harder to fund education and medical care
> is because there are great political debates over the best
> way to fund such things, while this attack is an urgent crisis
> that the country is united over. 90% of America supports the
> current military action, so the president was given
> a great big pile of money. If 90% of America supported
> a particular health care policy, the same would happen.
Oh right so 90% of the U.S. electorate don't support health care or education over warfare? Sounds like according to your f**kwit thesis that you've a lot in common with the taliban (which I hate, do you understand I HATE the taliban that is, although your thesis leaves a lot to be desired).
> This "when the truth comes out" comment amuses me.
> Apparently
> you have infortmation no one else does? No, again it is your
> assumption that anything America does is by definition immoral,
> which is why you didn't need to wait for America to actually
> do anything before accusing them of murdering innocent children.
"WHEN"... Since when has 'when' meant 'I know now'? F**kwit of the top order, thank you for another imbicilic comment. Wait here whilst I pop to the fridge for another beer. City are 3-0 up & presently that's far more important than wasting my insignificant life on you.
Right come down from up your own arse (again) IT'S NOT JUST THE U.S. KILLING INNOCENT KIDS (there I've said it again) IT'S THE U.K. TOO.
> What is the point behind your gleefully typed "whoops how's
> it doing
> at the moment" comment?
Probably means you can't answer the question f**kwit.
> He's not gung-ho for war. He takes, it would seem to me, a
> middle ground stance.
Well thank f**k for that cause if he took a warlike stance MORE INNOCENT KIDS WOULD BE KILLED.
> I don't know why you feel the need to call him a geezer.
> I just thought he made interesting comments about
> anti-American reaction to the attack on America, and
> a beautiful declration of what we in the secular democratic
> world have to stand up for. It really isn't an essay that
> fans the flames of war; I just thought it was
> thoughtful and worth looking at. Someone who "thinks for
> himself"
> should not shut out points of view so prejudicially.
O.K. what would you like... hmmn nice lady, he's a geezer same as me, a bloke, a guy, a man, male member of the species. How sad you now have to pick at the way I speak to try & JUSTIFY YOURSELF.
> And what do you mean when you dismiss him because, apparently,
> you dislike the title of one of his novels?
I never said I disliked his novel titles, I've never read any of his books, just another example of your make believes, I was making the point as to why Mr Rushdie has a bug bear against certain people.
> I've been aware of the Taliban. Clinton often mentioned
> them in speeches, and bin Laden has been big news for
> at least 5 years. Furthermore, I have been aware of
> the Islamic fundamentalist threat for my entire life,
> and for the past 10 years have viewed them as the single
> greatest enemy humanity has at the moment.
F**kwit, hows this for starters, poverty as killed more innocent kids than your arch enemy the Islamic fundamentalists could ever hope to achieve. But that's ok let's spend 'our' money on the war machinery instead.
> Is your problem that you have some automatic reaction against
> any
> use of a *bomb* in any situation? Are you able
> to concieve of situations where the dropping of bombs
> is the right thing to do? It seems like to you the act of
> allowing an explosive device to fall from an airplane is
> absolutely wrong no matter what. No matter what it is aimed at,
> how well it can be aimed, no matter what it's objective. Is that
> your position?
Until I started debating with you I could see no reason whatsoever that would see me taking any pleasure in dropping a bomb on anyone, as I said that was before I started debating with you that is. So congratulations you've just given me my first reason to start loving the bomb.
> Nice catch phrases, little substance. (I'll put these with the
> shallow slogan "Fred Flintsonted" posted to me the
> other day - "an eye for an eye leaves everyone
> blind.")
I was just trying to make you aware that there are some Americans that don't share your gung-ho position.
> You have a tendency to say we're doing something which we
> are not in fact doing at all, and then condemning us for it.
> You're really rather ridiculous, and not at all serious
> about what we should do in the current state of events.
Come on f**kwit, give me examples then, I dare you.
> Again, you're not a serious person about this situation.
What the hell are you on about Mr selective f**kwit? So you think I've given you all of my time just for a laugh, if I was joking I'd have just told you to go f**k off & die you arrogant egotistical tw@. But I never did so don't ever say I'm not serious about the subject of life & death.
> More silliness.
What the hell are you on about Mr selective f**kwit, I bet you own a gun don't you? I may have tried to put in some humour to try & make the reading of these postings less boring.
> You fail to prove you are not soft on fascism just because you
> apparently created a disruption for police who were probably
> just trying to stomach the free speech rights of neo-nazis
> without
> any riots breaking out (mere speculations on my part). Soft on
> fascism is when fascists with power
> are causing devastation on masses of people and you sit there
> and say we should do nothing about it.
F**kwit... read my previous postings, you just haven't a clue have you, be honest it won't hurt you, might make a nice change though or are you just suppressing honesty in aid of the war effort.
I've no idea why I'm attempting to justify myself to a f**kwit like you. I was on a mass protest, I'd travelled 200 miles (therefore 400 miles that day) to be on that peacful protest to close down the b.n.p. (a british neo nazi party) head quarters, it's located less than 5 miles away from were the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence took place.
> Without knowing any details and knowing you play fast and loose
> with truth, for all I know you quite deserved
> a thud on your head and the police officers were not
> "defending
> nazism" but merely trying to preserve the peace and their
> own safety. But this is all very irrelevant to the discussion at
> hand.
F**kwit by the sound of you I think you've met with a policemans batton once to often. I have never doubted what you have said to me that you did not believe in it yourself, I've questioned most of it but never made you out to be a liar, until earlier this post when you told me some news you'd made up that was supposed to have been in my post earlier.
> I just wanted to know what you would have us do in response
> to the attack.
F**kwit read my previous answers.
> That was the bit about the "Exterminate!
> Exterminate!"? I thought you were being a dodo brain,
> because it is the person I want to STOP who wants to exterminate
> people. I might also add that the pacifist response also
> supports extermination.
Well f**kwit in your enthusiasm to STOP him, you are EXTERMINATING INNOCENT KIDS.
> Keep crying over the destruction of the terrorist network.
> Later!
Why f**kwit would I cry over something we both agree we wish to see an end to, it's the INNOCENT KIDS that have been KILLED that I will be crying over & I shall shed a tear for you & your gung-ho attitude that thinks it's acceptable to KILL INNOCENT KIDS.
love life & an innocent one at that.
Grim O'Grady.
P.s. you don't mind me calling you f**kwit do you?
Re: you wind up merchant - here's my abuse
Boy, are you a spaz. Needless to say I'm not going to respond
to your deranged ramblings, but they gave me a couple of chuckles.
Well, I will anser one question: Yes, I own a gun. In fact,
I own three.
Once again, keep crying over the destruction of the terrorist
network and the fascist Taliban regime.
Since you are a child, and you care so much about the innocent children of Afghanistan, follow my presidents urging and
send a dollar to the White House. If you missed the press
conference last evening, my country is raising money
to help the Afghan children, who are starving under the Taliban.
The spaz wrote:
> You f**kwit, total class A golden nugget! Vaguest report, well
> that's the United Nations for you, vague!
> You f**kwit, the regime that the U.S. funded & armed. I'm
> sick to the back teeth of you, for the last time I'M NOT A
> F**KING PACIFIST!
> read my previous post! Take bin laden not INNOCENT PEOPLE.
> Funny it's f**king amazing, as this is news to me, I've not seen
> the reports from the taliban concerning the 20 civilian deaths.
> So you are now making up lies about what's in my previous posts.
> Please try & read them, or forget that f**kwit just make up
> your own version of my posts.
> F**kwit, I am outraged about all civillian deaths. That's not
> selective.
> F**king credibility damage, yeah well you've come through with
> shining colours & your credibility is so unquestionable, you
> sad gung-ho supporter of mass murder. How's that for a credible
> claim. O.K. here's what you want... I thhink (look I'm
> stammering now) we should kill all the guilty kids but I still
> stand by my STOP KILLING INNOCENT KIDS.
> If this is true in America (the United States of) then you truly
> are a gung-ho nation, because over here during our elections
> there's not a mention of defence in their manifestos of the main
> 3 parties, with the possible exception of them diminishing the
> budgets of the armed forces to save tax payers money.
> Oh right so 90% of the U.S. electorate don't support health care
> or education over warfare?
You're not a very good reader. I said that there is division over
what the correct health care and education policies should be.
No one opposes health care and education (at least no one
that I know of), but many have very different ideas on what the government should do with respect to health care and education. It's called living in a democracy.
>Sounds like according to your f**kwit
> thesis that you've a lot in common with the taliban (which I
> hate, do you understand I HATE the taliban that is, although
> your thesis leaves a lot to be desired).
> "WHEN"... Since when has 'when' meant 'I know now'?
> F**kwit of the top order, thank you for another imbicilic
> comment. Wait here whilst I pop to the fridge for another beer.
> City are 3-0 up & presently that's far more important than
> wasting my insignificant life on you.
> Right come down from up your own arse (again) IT'S NOT JUST THE
> U.S. KILLING INNOCENT KIDS (there I've said it again) IT'S THE
> U.K. TOO.
> Probably means you can't answer the question f**kwit.
> Well thank f**k for that cause if he took a warlike stance MORE
> INNOCENT KIDS WOULD BE KILLED.
> O.K. what would you like... hmmn nice lady, he's a geezer same
> as me, a bloke, a guy, a man, male member of the species. How
> sad you now have to pick at the way I speak to try & JUSTIFY
> YOURSELF.
> I never said I disliked his novel titles, I've never read any of
> his books, just another example of your make believes, I was
> making the point as to why Mr Rushdie has a bug bear against
> certain people.
> F**kwit, hows this for starters, poverty as killed more innocent
> kids than your arch enemy the Islamic fundamentalists could ever
> hope to achieve. But that's ok let's spend 'our' money on the
> war machinery instead.
> Until I started debating with you I could see no reason
> whatsoever that would see me taking any pleasure in dropping a
> bomb on anyone, as I said that was before I started debating
> with you that is. So congratulations you've just given me my
> first reason to start loving the bomb.
> I was just trying to make you aware that there are some
> Americans that don't share your gung-ho position.
> Come on f**kwit, give me examples then, I dare you.
> What the hell are you on about Mr selective f**kwit? So you
> think I've given you all of my time just for a laugh, if I was
> joking I'd have just told you to go f**k off & die you
> arrogant egotistical tw@. But I never did so don't ever say I'm
> not serious about the subject of life & death.
> What the hell are you on about Mr selective f**kwit, I bet you
> own a gun don't you? I may have tried to put in some humour to
> try & make the reading of these postings less boring.
> F**kwit... read my previous postings, you just haven't a clue
> have you, be honest it won't hurt you, might make a nice change
> though or are you just suppressing honesty in aid of the war
> effort.
> I've no idea why I'm attempting to justify myself to a f**kwit
> like you. I was on a mass protest, I'd travelled 200 miles
> (therefore 400 miles that day) to be on that peacful protest to
> close down the b.n.p. (a british neo nazi party) head quarters,
> it's located less than 5 miles away from were the racist murder
> of Stephen Lawrence took place.
> F**kwit by the sound of you I think you've met with a policemans
> batton once to often. I have never doubted what you have said to
> me that you did not believe in it yourself, I've questioned most
> of it but never made you out to be a liar, until earlier this
> post when you told me some news you'd made up that was supposed
> to have been in my post earlier.
> F**kwit read my previous answers.
> Well f**kwit in your enthusiasm to STOP him, you are
> EXTERMINATING INNOCENT KIDS.
> Why f**kwit would I cry over something we both agree we wish to
> see an end to, it's the INNOCENT KIDS that have been KILLED that
> I will be crying over & I shall shed a tear for you &
> your gung-ho attitude that thinks it's acceptable to KILL
> INNOCENT KIDS.
> love life & an innocent one at that.
> Grim O'Grady.
> P.s. you don't mind me calling you f**kwit do you?
Grim o'grady has gone UP in my estimation!! you go girl!!
Posting Permissions
