And one more thing.
Covering lack of ideas and knowledge of a subject in discussion with flashy words and rhetorics, meanings of which one does not even understand is no more then a pure demagogy at best and infantilism at worst.
For instance: do you even know the meaning of the word "fascist", so commonly used in your post?
If this discussion cannot at least remain civil (it seems friendly would be asking too much), then the discussion will come to an end. This goes for everybody.
__________________
Newest To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And one more thing.
Covering lack of ideas and knowledge of a subject in discussion with flashy words and rhetorics, meanings of which one does not even understand is no more then a pure demagogy at best and infantilism at worst.
For instance: do you even know the meaning of the word "fascist", so commonly used in your post?
Fascist is the word that liberals use to paint folks that disagree with them. It's fairly obvious most of the people that try use it as an insult have no idea what it means.
Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Sounds like what we are trying to prevent with what we are doin'. These are the people we are fighting. The people in Gitmo were fighting for this system. The terrorists want to bring this form of government to us all.
__________________
Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time.
I think I've forgotten this before.
-Steven Wright-
Location: Fullerton, California; North Orange County, just south of L.A.
Posts: 27
Device: V220
Carrier: Cingular
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well yes, I AM an ASSHOLE.
Well kids, I guess I must have hit a sore spot. In response to the questions I was asked...
Yes, I am well acquainted with fascism. I went to a very progressive high school and got a very complete introduction to the major political trends of the 20th century. I also know plenty of Israelis, Jukov, who feel like you do. I am not some Shalom Akshavnik. I have no quarrel with killing those who deserve it, and this certainly includes anyone who murders innocent people. In this I am inflexible. I do not much care whether the killing is done by Saudi terrorists or rabidly patriotic Americans. Killing is killing, and anyone who sanctions it sans some sort of rational and careful examination of evidence justifying it, is wrong. If anyone got their feelings hurt, that is unfortunate.
People who advocate hateful things are due no slack or understanding. It does not much matter to me if the hateful person is a Jew or an Arab, a patriot or an insurrectionist.
Yes, it is true that the guys who died in GitMo died by suicide. I accept that everyone has a right to kill themselves. I do not hold Americans responsible for this. Selecting life or death is individual decision that I do not think should be abridged, but suicide is a very different than murder.
Careful reading of my previous post will (perhaps) reveal that my response was NOT to fact of the detainees killing themselves. It was not a response to the United States holding them there. Nor was it a response to the conditions they are held under. It was a response only to what several posters said indicating that everyone at GitMo should be summarily executed. I do not particularly object to the principle of killing anyone, as long as a meaningful examination of evidence by as impartial an authority as possible is done first, and as long as there is a meaningful opportunity for the people about to be killed to present evidence to the contrary. This means some sort of PROCESS.
In my world view, it is not enough to simply assert that a given group of people should be summarily executed, then kill them. I would probably kill the 9/11 guys without much grief, but I do not know for certain in the utter absence of any evidence other than what I see on television. To judge anyone deserving of murder on the basis of reports of their actions in the media seems a little stupid to my ears. It is amusing that some of you think I am a liberal because I will not condone killing on the basis of evidence presented in TV shows.
Jukov, if you really think that killing all of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay is reasonable, you are as morally bankrupt as the other weighing in here and taking this view. Condoning killing the guys in GitMo detention would be like condoning Arik Sharon's allowing militias to enter the Sabra and Chantila camps to kill people. If you are old enough to remember the demonstrations in Tel Aviv after that incident, you might have a clue that not all Israelis are ready to see others killed without useful and due process.
I suspect that the larger offense on my part was not merely taking issue with the idea of killing GitMo prisoners, but rather noticing that the idea itself was childish. Ah, but on this point I remain unrepentant. Because I am such an asshole, no doubt. If you cannot attack someone on the merit of your belief, resort to argumentum ad baculum or populum. I do not mind being called an asshole. Certainly to the degree that it defines me as invested in a belief system that opposes indiscriminate murder, I embrace the definition.
However, I am not a liberal. Asshole? Absolutely. Liberal? Not so much. I made aliyah because I believed things said by Meir Kahana. I did not linger long in the Kach camp, though I still support Likud, and I voted the Tzomet list when it was a practical option. This is not the history of a liberal, but better a liberal than a ruthless killer.
I guess that I hope anyone who is ready to disregard the humanity of guys like those in Guantanamo Bay will NOT in turn have their humanity ever disregarded. I do not much care if this disregard comes from a terrorist or a policeman. It is just wrong to casually assent to killing anyone who is in a cell and, to the extent they are in a cage, helpless. There are plenty of real threats to occupy the minds and hands of an army of casual killers. It is not necessary to murder children, unarmed men and women, or prisoners of any sort. There are plenty of other targets to slake one's thirst for killing, to let one work out any amount of anger. It is unnecessary to murder helpless prisoners in their cells.
I am just dying to read the justifications this letter will evoke from the recent correspondents who claim to be pro-mass-murder. It is with warm anticipation that I am anticipating these responses. And, I am as pleased as can be to know that I have letters on the way full of rage and fuzzy thinking, appeals to broader opinions supporting this bad thinking, retractions of assertions that people never taken to trial, never allowed to present evidence to save their lives, should be killed out of hand. This should be good.
Thanks for the attention, everyone. I enjoyed your posts very much, and appreciated the tone if not the reasoning. Primal. Childlike. Rage-filled. Hungry for vengeance. Very good material.
Please though, in you next posts try to surprise. I am anxious to read justifications for the advocacy the killing of people already made harmless by locking them up. I am especially curious to learn how young people think about issues like the state killing people who have had no trials, no chance to defend themselves. And be forewarned, merely asserting that Arabs brought down the World Trade Center buildings, and that this then justifies killing any Arabs who end up in our sights will not much satisfy me. Failure to adequately articulate your views will also cost you points. Lets see if you guys can put your rhetoric where your desires for justice and vengeance are.
I will take nothing written personally. To me, this is just pilpul. Jukov. I am going to guess that you have spent little or no time in yeshiva, so I advise you find a Chabadnik to learn what pilpul is if you don't already know. And everyone, thanks for the energy. I feel your passion.
__________________
==============================
Robyn Robertson
Ent. Eng./ Proj. Mngr.
Eos Consulting/Concannon Systems
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Well kids, I guess I must have hit a sore spot. In response to the questions I was asked...
Yes, I am well acquainted with fascism. I went to a very progressive high school and got a very complete introduction to the major political trends of the 20th century. I also know plenty of Israelis, Jukov, who feel like you do. I am not some Shalom Akshavnik. I have no quarrel with killing those who deserve it, and this certainly includes anyone who murders innocent people. In this I am inflexible. I do not much care whether the killing is done by Saudi terrorists or rabidly patriotic Americans. Killing is killing, and anyone who sanctions it sans some sort of rational and careful examination of evidence justifying it, is wrong. If anyone got their feelings hurt, that is unfortunate.
People who advocate hateful things are due no slack or understanding. It does not much matter to me if the hateful person is a Jew or an Arab, a patriot or an insurrectionist.
Yes, it is true that the guys who died in GitMo died by suicide. I accept that everyone has a right to kill themselves. I do not hold Americans responsible for this. Selecting life or death is individual decision that I do not think should be abridged, but suicide is a very different than murder.
Careful reading of my previous post will (perhaps) reveal that my response was NOT to fact of the detainees killing themselves. It was not a response to the United States holding them there. Nor was it a response to the conditions they are held under. It was a response only to what several posters said indicating that everyone at GitMo should be summarily executed. I do not particularly object to the principle of killing anyone, as long as a meaningful examination of evidence by as impartial an authority as possible is done first, and as long as there is a meaningful opportunity for the people about to be killed to present evidence to the contrary. This means some sort of PROCESS.
In my world view, it is not enough to simply assert that a given group of people should be summarily executed, then kill them. I would probably kill the 9/11 guys without much grief, but I do not know for certain in the utter absence of any evidence other than what I see on television. To judge anyone deserving of murder on the basis of reports of their actions in the media seems a little stupid to my ears. It is amusing that some of you think I am a liberal because I will not condone killing on the basis of evidence presented in TV shows.
Jukov, if you really think that killing all of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay is reasonable, you are as morally bankrupt as the other weighing in here and taking this view. Condoning killing the guys in GitMo detention would be like condoning Arik Sharon's allowing militias to enter the Sabra and Chantila camps to kill people. If you are old enough to remember the demonstrations in Tel Aviv after that incident, you might have a clue that not all Israelis are ready to see others killed without useful and due process.
I suspect that the larger offense on my part was not merely taking issue with the idea of killing GitMo prisoners, but rather noticing that the idea itself was childish. Ah, but on this point I remain unrepentant. Because I am such an asshole, no doubt. If you cannot attack someone on the merit of your belief, resort to argumentum ad baculum or populum. I do not mind being called an asshole. Certainly to the degree that it defines me as invested in a belief system that opposes indiscriminate murder, I embrace the definition.
However, I am not a liberal. Asshole? Absolutely. Liberal? Not so much. I made aliyah because I believed things said by Meir Kahana. I did not linger long in the Kach camp, though I still support Likud, and I voted the Tzomet list when it was a practical option. This is not the history of a liberal, but better a liberal than a ruthless killer.
I guess that I hope anyone who is ready to disregard the humanity of guys like those in Guantanamo Bay will NOT in turn have their humanity ever disregarded. I do not much care if this disregard comes from a terrorist or a policeman. It is just wrong to casually assent to killing anyone who is in a cell and, to the extent they are in a cage, helpless. There are plenty of real threats to occupy the minds and hands of an army of casual killers. It is not necessary to murder children, unarmed men and women, or prisoners of any sort. There are plenty of other targets to slake one's thirst for killing, to let one work out any amount of anger. It is unnecessary to murder helpless prisoners in their cells.
I am just dying to read the justifications this letter will evoke from the recent correspondents who claim to be pro-mass-murder. It is with warm anticipation that I am anticipating these responses. And, I am as pleased as can be to know that I have letters on the way full of rage and fuzzy thinking, appeals to broader opinions supporting this bad thinking, retractions of assertions that people never taken to trial, never allowed to present evidence to save their lives, should be killed out of hand. This should be good.
Thanks for the attention, everyone. I enjoyed your posts very much, and appreciated the tone if not the reasoning. Primal. Childlike. Rage-filled. Hungry for vengeance. Very good material.
Please though, in you next posts try to surprise. I am anxious to read justifications for the advocacy the killing of people already made harmless by locking them up. I am especially curious to learn how young people think about issues like the state killing people who have had no trials, no chance to defend themselves. And be forewarned, merely asserting that Arabs brought down the World Trade Center buildings, and that this then justifies killing any Arabs who end up in our sights will not much satisfy me. Failure to adequately articulate your views will also cost you points. Lets see if you guys can put your rhetoric where your desires for justice and vengeance are.
I will take nothing written personally. To me, this is just pilpul. Jukov. I am going to guess that you have spent little or no time in yeshiva, so I advise you find a Chabadnik to learn what pilpul is if you don't already know. And everyone, thanks for the energy. I feel your passion.
Good post with well thought out arguments, it will be interesting to see what the "pro slaughter" brigade have got to say about it.
I hope they don't become too juvenile and get the thread shut down as it is starting to become interesting.
"One of the three men who committed suicide at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay was due to be released - but did not know it, says a US lawyer. [...]"
So he was not guilty or what? He didn't commit suicide as an act of war. It seems he was desperate being illegally locked away for 4 years without a chance of a fair trial... and knowing that he will have to stay there until "war on terrorism" is over which - according to the president of the US - will take years.
There is international law and there is humanity. When will the US government return to be a member of the society of civilized nations?
Fascist is the word that liberals use to paint folks that disagree with them. It's fairly obvious most of the people that try use it as an insult have no idea what it means.
Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Sounds like what we are trying to prevent with what we are doin'. These are the people we are fighting. The people in Gitmo were fighting for this system. The terrorists want to bring this form of government to us all.
You should spend a few minutes to understand the other side before you make opening and closing sweeping statements.
Look at the defination you have posted and compare to the US policies today.
1) US is talking about guest workers with RFID chips in their bodies (sound on par with a past practist)
2) US has a large centeral goverment, with in which the use terror (WMD was just 1 such tool) to get a population to go on a preemptive war.
3) TSA and other air travel forced changes.
4) Nationalism (protect the flag, protect the country)
5) A President that willing to not to support the law, but keep find ways around it. (Wiretaps, super-database of domestic phone numbers)
This list is just a light look. I hope others are looking for both supportive and dismissive facts.
1) US is talking about guest workers with RFID chips in their bodies (sound on par with a past practist)
lots of ideas are being bounced around, from lots of different people... Don't criticize the discussions, criticize the results.
Quote:
2) US has a large centeral goverment, with in which the use terror (WMD was just 1 such tool) to get a population to go on a preemptive war.
WAR is a federal responsibility. Terror is an issue, a world wide issue. Some countries just aren't willing/able to do much about it. Define: Responsibility, Initiative.
Gay Marrage is a State's Right... Why have a federal amendment?
Conservatives are having an issue with this administration about how the gov't has actually grown under this admin. The admin points to War/security and drug policies and disasters.
Quote:
3) TSA and other air travel forced changes
OK... bring anything on a plane you want. guns, knives, (nail clippers??)whatever. We'll just pretend that 3 planes didn't get hijaaked and someone else brought a shoe bomb on for a school project.
What should they have done?
Quote:
4) Nationalism (protect the flag, protect the country)
And?? You know, when the crap hits the fan, you (we) should be able to set aside the petty political BS and be able to unite as a country... That is except for the people that have 'other' agendas. Ever heard the phrase "Leave it in the locker room"
Quote:
5) A President that willing to not to support the law, but keep find ways around it. (Wiretaps, super-database of domestic phone numbers)
Echelon
Domestic terrorists (Canada, UK, etc)
What laws were actually broken? There was a lot of opinions in the media, but that seems to have died down... if there was an actual CRIME committed, there would have been impeachment hearings inside of 3 days. Nope, just a lot of people that wanted to hear themselves speak in front of a mic.
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Only if these people get fair trials
* Jeffrey Ake
* Eugene Armstrong
* Florence Aubenas
* Enzo Baldoni
* Nick Berg
* Kenneth Bigley
* James Brandon
* Jill Carroll
* Rory Carroll
* Christian Chesnot
*Fadi Ihsan Fadel
* Tom Fox
* Roy Hallums
* Margaret Hassan
* Jack Hensley
* Ulf Hjertstrom
* Marie Jeanne Ion
* Maher Kemal
* Norman Kember
* Teresa Borcz Khalifa
* Kim Sun-il
* Shosei Koda
* Naji al-Kuwaiti
* James Loney
* Georges Malbrunot
* Matt Maupin
* Susanne Osthoff
* Fabrizio Quattrocchi
* Rifat Mohammed Rifat
* Akihiko Saito
* Ronald Alan Schulz
* Giuliana Sgrena
* Ihab al-Sherif
* Harmeet Singh Sooden
* Douglas Wood
* Fairuz Yamulky
* Murat Yuce
* Daniel Pearl
Exactly, what did those that died at Gitmo have to do with these people, and what evidence do you have? Or do you not require evidence?
So this is the same international rule of law that says the United States can not act in a premptive manner in reguards to national security. Or the International rule of law that says israel can not build a wall to protect its own people from homicide bombings. so you will have to forgive me if my opinion of the International Rule of Law isnt as sparkling as some other members.
By your rational, both Iran and North Korea should preemtively attack us, since they have both been clearly threatened by George W. Bush. You need to think about this preemtive stupidity. Since a Christian killed an innocent night watchman at an abortion clinic, does that mean we should kill all Christians?
when you are up to your ass in alligators (gitmo detainees). it is sometimes difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp (iraq)
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
