There was a thing I appreciate (if it's possible to appreciate anything in a war) in the crusades age:
Leaders, even kings, fought and died at the head of their warriors.
Now rulers decide for we all, then they stay safe, we not!
Hey Mr. George W., Mr. Tony, Mr. Silvio! Take a gun. Wear an helmet and go to Nassiria, in the streets! Then I'll come to shot at your shoulder.
Leave the limousine and go wait for the train in the underground stations!
Then I'll agree with you.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cochise on 2005-07-08 13:58 ]</font>
bombs in london
hehe! You sure are fond of the 'spin' term. I know it's a favourite word of the American right-wing used when the normally co-operative media don't play ball with them, because even for the media scaremongers, the truth is sometimes too damn obvious to cover up.
You say on one hand that it's foolish to accept media spin (this in itself is really weird... I don't know what you get in America, but here we have a pretty much pro-government stance from the media). If anyone steps out of line the powers that be step in and impose their authority. I invite you to refer to the whitewashed findings of an inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly.. something which exposed the idiocy of the media just as much as the government. In a nutshell, the BBC had all the evidence it needed to implicate the government as blood-thirsty liars, but to make the story more sensational they changed some facts and on the back of this, the inquiry said they were pathological liars and should be discredited, and the government got away with it. Hooray for democracy and the free press.
Now on the other hand, you seem quite happy to accept governmental spin... this is quite a bizarre and nonsensical choice and not one I can share.
I don't accept any type of 'spin'... I look at all the evidence I can get and I make up my own mind.
You talk about Saddam's evil regime... what about the UN-imposed sanctions after the Gulf war that led the country down even more corrupt roads and deprived the population of medical supplies? Who supported Saddam in the early days of his regime because it was convenient, giving him the arms and chemical weapons to wage his own terror campaign on people he didn't like? Of course, that is perfectly valid as long as it suits US foreign policy.
I find it strange that Abu Ghraib was supposedly isolated.. when there is countless evidence of the same type of methods being used at Guantanamo Bay, for example. I also find it very hard to disbelieve the people taking part in this claiming that it was a policy endorsed by the top-most levels of military power. These 'soldiers' were not exactly intelligent. However I don't think they were stupid enough to risk a court marshall just for the sake of a few cheap perverted laughs. The torture tactics used by the US are intended to dehumanize and break the resolve of prisoners, whether they are guilty of a crime or not. While I have no sympathy for the soldiers who perpetrated the torture, I cannot believe that they are anything but scapegoats for policy sanctioned by Rumsfeld and others.
And you talk about 9/11 being an unprovoked attack. This is utter crap and you know it. You imply that people should forget ancient squabbles. Well, I'm afraid the crusades led to one of the most horrible conflicts still going on today: Israel vs Palestine. So it's still very relevant, and the wounds are still very fresh and growing.
You say on one hand that it's foolish to accept media spin (this in itself is really weird... I don't know what you get in America, but here we have a pretty much pro-government stance from the media). If anyone steps out of line the powers that be step in and impose their authority. I invite you to refer to the whitewashed findings of an inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly.. something which exposed the idiocy of the media just as much as the government. In a nutshell, the BBC had all the evidence it needed to implicate the government as blood-thirsty liars, but to make the story more sensational they changed some facts and on the back of this, the inquiry said they were pathological liars and should be discredited, and the government got away with it. Hooray for democracy and the free press.
Now on the other hand, you seem quite happy to accept governmental spin... this is quite a bizarre and nonsensical choice and not one I can share.
I don't accept any type of 'spin'... I look at all the evidence I can get and I make up my own mind.
You talk about Saddam's evil regime... what about the UN-imposed sanctions after the Gulf war that led the country down even more corrupt roads and deprived the population of medical supplies? Who supported Saddam in the early days of his regime because it was convenient, giving him the arms and chemical weapons to wage his own terror campaign on people he didn't like? Of course, that is perfectly valid as long as it suits US foreign policy.
I find it strange that Abu Ghraib was supposedly isolated.. when there is countless evidence of the same type of methods being used at Guantanamo Bay, for example. I also find it very hard to disbelieve the people taking part in this claiming that it was a policy endorsed by the top-most levels of military power. These 'soldiers' were not exactly intelligent. However I don't think they were stupid enough to risk a court marshall just for the sake of a few cheap perverted laughs. The torture tactics used by the US are intended to dehumanize and break the resolve of prisoners, whether they are guilty of a crime or not. While I have no sympathy for the soldiers who perpetrated the torture, I cannot believe that they are anything but scapegoats for policy sanctioned by Rumsfeld and others.
And you talk about 9/11 being an unprovoked attack. This is utter crap and you know it. You imply that people should forget ancient squabbles. Well, I'm afraid the crusades led to one of the most horrible conflicts still going on today: Israel vs Palestine. So it's still very relevant, and the wounds are still very fresh and growing.
Just re-read your post narly, here's some evidence for the Iraqi body count:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
Apologies.. the words of the article were a little confusing. The article refers to this independent site:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Still puts the figure at between 22,000 and 25,000... a staggeringly huge amount.
Compare this to the number killed in the New York, Madrid and London attacks. These attacks all made me sick, and I'm not trying to use the number of deaths on each side as justification.. every single death was an unnecessary and tragic civilian death.
However, in all the talk of the London and Madrid attacks being unprovoked, it is implied that 25,000 dead Iraqi civilians are insignificant. If not, then why were these attacks seen as unprovoked?
Lastly, I must re-iterate that I don't think any of these civilian tragedies is more horrible than the other. The point I have been trying to make in all my posts is that the US and UK governments have just as much contempt for their own citizens as they do for the Arab world, and the rest of the world for that matter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
Apologies.. the words of the article were a little confusing. The article refers to this independent site:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Still puts the figure at between 22,000 and 25,000... a staggeringly huge amount.
Compare this to the number killed in the New York, Madrid and London attacks. These attacks all made me sick, and I'm not trying to use the number of deaths on each side as justification.. every single death was an unnecessary and tragic civilian death.
However, in all the talk of the London and Madrid attacks being unprovoked, it is implied that 25,000 dead Iraqi civilians are insignificant. If not, then why were these attacks seen as unprovoked?
Lastly, I must re-iterate that I don't think any of these civilian tragedies is more horrible than the other. The point I have been trying to make in all my posts is that the US and UK governments have just as much contempt for their own citizens as they do for the Arab world, and the rest of the world for that matter.
I have no personal beefs with anyone here and I think we can agree that there has been much death and distruction at the ends of senseless violence. The problem facing all of us is how to deal with it.
I guess my point is that truths are relative and your perspective will determine whether certain acts are justifiable self preservation or agresssion. I don't think there's a clear-cut case to either ignore or to launch all-out martial rule in an effort to contain it. I think that's kinda where we are - somewhere in the middle of those. You can't do nothing, and you can't flush the whole world.
Yes, I call twisting of words and context spin. When it applies - that's what it is. After all, I've seen about everthing having lived through the Clinton administration and the massive spin machines that propped up his sorry lying butt. Our media tends to rationalize events in a pro-liberal light, regardless. Not sure why that is, other than it must please the hedonist masses and therefore is meant to improve their image (and thus viewership). So, anyway, to me generalizing, misuse of terminology like "trigger-happy" and "redneck-monkey," is unneccesarily inflamatory and an attempt to stir up displaced connotations to real events.
However, I'm still confused whether you are in favor of peaceful, negotiated outcomes to the differences that plague our new cross-cultural world. Kinda sounds in your last post that you feel the crusades justify the hatred that is propogated and the resulting justification of violence on innocents today. If this is going to work, then everyone's got to give in at least a little. My observations have been that Palestine and the Jihadists are not...
I guess my point is that truths are relative and your perspective will determine whether certain acts are justifiable self preservation or agresssion. I don't think there's a clear-cut case to either ignore or to launch all-out martial rule in an effort to contain it. I think that's kinda where we are - somewhere in the middle of those. You can't do nothing, and you can't flush the whole world.
Yes, I call twisting of words and context spin. When it applies - that's what it is. After all, I've seen about everthing having lived through the Clinton administration and the massive spin machines that propped up his sorry lying butt. Our media tends to rationalize events in a pro-liberal light, regardless. Not sure why that is, other than it must please the hedonist masses and therefore is meant to improve their image (and thus viewership). So, anyway, to me generalizing, misuse of terminology like "trigger-happy" and "redneck-monkey," is unneccesarily inflamatory and an attempt to stir up displaced connotations to real events.
However, I'm still confused whether you are in favor of peaceful, negotiated outcomes to the differences that plague our new cross-cultural world. Kinda sounds in your last post that you feel the crusades justify the hatred that is propogated and the resulting justification of violence on innocents today. If this is going to work, then everyone's got to give in at least a little. My observations have been that Palestine and the Jihadists are not...
Narly, I agree, the term 'trigger-happy American' was inflammatory, and I'm sorry to have used it. By "trigger-happy" I didn't mean necessarily 'happy in pulling the trigger'. The fact is that there are some real 'Cleetus'-type yokels in the army who are too stupid to know better, and there are also a lot of intelligent but unlucky and very very scared kids out there. People who are so scared of the alien environment they find themselves in as a result of their government's barbarism that they can quite easily kill innocent women and children in the heat of the moment.
'redneck monkey' - I cannot disassociate myself from this remark because this is what Bush is. He is in a group called the Hillbillies in the Bohemian Grove group. He is a totally stupid yokel who had a powerful daddy and granddaddy. I have no respect for him, and I do not regret calling him a redneck monkey at all. Sorry.
Lastly, I am not using the crusades as any kind of justification for the Islamic world hating the west. I actually believe that the Jihad groups and Bush and the people who he works for are the sickest people on the planet.
During the crusades, the Templar Knights and several other groups formed close alliances with the Muslim 'Assassins', with whom they shared a common love of blood-thirsty combat (honour amongst killers). The Templar Knights and other crusader groups became the foundation for Masonic organizations, which is also part of the basis of the Illuminati, and its associated banking interests (Rockefeller and the Federal Reserve).
So there's quite a lot of fascinating history there. It is my sincere belief that the US (and their banking overlords) and the Islamic extremists are in this together. They share a common nihilist goal, and the love of spilling blood. I have no time for either of them... the sooner we all wake up to this fact, the sooner we can bring peace to the world.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dArKr3zIn on 2005-07-08 15:28 ]</font>
'redneck monkey' - I cannot disassociate myself from this remark because this is what Bush is. He is in a group called the Hillbillies in the Bohemian Grove group. He is a totally stupid yokel who had a powerful daddy and granddaddy. I have no respect for him, and I do not regret calling him a redneck monkey at all. Sorry.
Lastly, I am not using the crusades as any kind of justification for the Islamic world hating the west. I actually believe that the Jihad groups and Bush and the people who he works for are the sickest people on the planet.
During the crusades, the Templar Knights and several other groups formed close alliances with the Muslim 'Assassins', with whom they shared a common love of blood-thirsty combat (honour amongst killers). The Templar Knights and other crusader groups became the foundation for Masonic organizations, which is also part of the basis of the Illuminati, and its associated banking interests (Rockefeller and the Federal Reserve).
So there's quite a lot of fascinating history there. It is my sincere belief that the US (and their banking overlords) and the Islamic extremists are in this together. They share a common nihilist goal, and the love of spilling blood. I have no time for either of them... the sooner we all wake up to this fact, the sooner we can bring peace to the world.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dArKr3zIn on 2005-07-08 15:28 ]</font>
-
ElectronicaDub
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: The Sprawl
- Contact:
When working-class people are targetted by those who use violence for political ends, the purpetrators are our enemies. The Iraqi insrgents are not one bloc of political ideas, you know. Iraq is a very complicated and confusing place with different ideologies and factions fighting it out. It is a nightmare. The Americans and British turn a blind eye to the Iraqi police and Army torturing people and even killing them as they did under Saddam. This fuels the insurgency which splits off into many different ideas and ways of getting back. Iraq really is a hornets' nest and the people who pay are, as always in wars, the ordinary people who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
I would love to see G W Bush and Blair in a bare knuckle fight with the people who leave bombs on trains. It is about time our leaders took some of the blame and took some of the pain.
I would love to see G W Bush and Blair in a bare knuckle fight with the people who leave bombs on trains. It is about time our leaders took some of the blame and took some of the pain.
You still upset about the CrusadesOn 2005-07-08 13:46, dArKr3zIn wrote:
And you talk about 9/11 being an unprovoked attack. This is utter crap and you know it. You imply that people should forget ancient squabbles. Well, I'm afraid the crusades led to one of the most horrible conflicts still going on today: Israel vs Palestine. So it's still very relevant, and the wounds are still very fresh and growing.
? The campaigns of Richard the Lionheart still hurt ?reread the definition of insurgent. insurgents are, BY DEFINITION non-violent. you are repeating rhetoric. there is NO evidence that iraqis had anything to do with this. nothing personal, i am just poining out facts.On 2005-07-08 16:16, ElectronicaDub wrote:
When working-class people are targetted by those who use violence for political ends, the purpetrators are our enemies. The Iraqi insrgents are not one bloc of political ideas, you know. Iraq is a very complicated and confusing place with different ideologies and factions fighting it out. It is a nightmare. The Americans and British turn a blind eye to the Iraqi police and Army torturing people and even killing them as they did under Saddam. This fuels the insurgency which splits off into many different ideas and ways of getting back. Iraq really is a hornets' nest and the people who pay are, as always in wars, the ordinary people who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
I would love to see G W Bush and Blair in a bare knuckle fight with the people who leave bombs on trains. It is about time our leaders took some of the blame and took some of the pain.
It's absolutely true that Iraq is full of diverse sects and ethnic factions. Even more reason that our simpleton armies shouldn't go in throwing their weight around.
One of the greatest war films I've ever seen is Ridley Scott's 'Black Hawk Down', set during the Somali crisis in the 90s.
If you want to see how the US military machine operates, please watch this film. Strangely, this film came out just after the 9/11 attacks, and was a focus for patriotic feeling. This is baffling if you understand what this film is trying to say.
One of the greatest war films I've ever seen is Ridley Scott's 'Black Hawk Down', set during the Somali crisis in the 90s.
If you want to see how the US military machine operates, please watch this film. Strangely, this film came out just after the 9/11 attacks, and was a focus for patriotic feeling. This is baffling if you understand what this film is trying to say.
Let me sayOn 2005-07-08 15:28, dArKr3zIn wrote:
'redneck monkey' - I cannot disassociate myself from this remark because this is what Bush is. He is in a group called the Hillbillies in the Bohemian Grove group. He is a totally stupid yokel who had a powerful daddy and granddaddy. I have no respect for him, and I do not regret calling him a redneck monkey at all. Sorry.
I know just the public image of G.W. Bush and I think he's surely not intelligent as J.F.Kennedy (even coming from an important family) was. Besides he would not be there now as president if he would be a reasonable person. I would be sick in my mind if I wouldn't understand this.
To anyone who would like an eye-opening perspective on the war on terror, and the rest of US history, I encourage you to check out some Noam Chomsky:
http://www.chomsky.info
http://www.chomsky.info
If you're referring to me, I bear no-one any personal grudge and I am not a violent person. I merely feel that to make flippant comments about the crusades insults a massive part of the world population. It's pure racism, ignorance and lack of respect.
There's a part of me which would like to react with violent words to Spirit's silliness, but another part of me that realises he's just silly and it's not worth tainting myself with violence as a reaction to such silliness...
Apart from anything else, this is not the time or place for more fighting, and Planet Z should not be a place of personal conflict. I'm trying my best to keep the discussion civil.
There's a part of me which would like to react with violent words to Spirit's silliness, but another part of me that realises he's just silly and it's not worth tainting myself with violence as a reaction to such silliness...
Apart from anything else, this is not the time or place for more fighting, and Planet Z should not be a place of personal conflict. I'm trying my best to keep the discussion civil.