I don't know what to say
I don't think there is much to say except for condolences for the victims of those attacks.
Here is an excerpt from a post awhile back. It is a conversation between my blartner and I about terrorism, its nature, and modern times. (Click on read more to read the whole excerpt)
Shi Kuku: really what terrorism is all about is a small portion of the population inflicting their will on the masses
Shi Kuku: that is why leftists[I should say hardcore leftists like Chomsky and Michael Moore] support them
Shi Kuku: they want everyone to follow them
Kabokov: That's exactly what it is.
Kabokov: It's extreme, but it gets our message across.
Shi Kuku: they realize that if you're soft on terrorism or you're afraid of it or you react to it, then you will be way easier to subjugate to a minority will
Shi Kuku: look at Spain
Shi Kuku: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4249159.stm
Shi Kuku: changed their government for the terrorists and everything
Shi Kuku: and still...
Kabokov:
The terrorists control themKabokov: Are they good people?
Kabokov: I think not
Shi Kuku: well terrorism is the same thing as despotism or dictatorships
Shi Kuku: which the left increasingly sympathizes with
Shi Kuku: they believe that they are smarter and know better and should control the rest of the populace
Shi Kuku: and democracy is not the right mode for them
Shi Kuku: they know most people know common sense
Shi Kuku: and the only way they would be able to justify taking power would be to justify minority-controlling-majority tactics like dictatorships and terrorists
Shi Kuku: the power of the people is not something they ascribe to
Shi Kuku: like that first BBC article I quoted, he kind of even mocks this idea
Kabokov: Yeah
Shi Kuku: By training she is a Soviet specialist and one thing she and the president share is a belief that totalitarianism can be overthrown by the "power of the people".
Shi Kuku: they put it in quotes like
Shi Kuku: Ha what a stupid concept
Kabokov: I know I noticed
Kabokov: The people can control their own destiny?
Kabokov: Who dares spread these ridiculous claims
Shi Kuku: they also quote these words
Shi Kuku: His message was that "liberty and freedom" were his watchwords and that he would aim to spread them around the world.
Shi Kuku: like ha "liberty and freedom" otherwise known as "common sense policies and not what the left wants"
Kabokov: Yeah it's a big joke to them
Kabokov: They mock the US like they know better
Kabokov: That's why they mentioned Germany like that
Kabokov: They don't feel they need to insult the US.
...Kabokov: That's perfectKabokov: Look at Israel for what is and tell me they're wrong
Kabokov: You can't.
Shi Kuku: Only democratic state
Shi Kuku: and the only successful one
Kabokov: hey, they hate democracy
Kabokov: That's why Iraq was a failure
Kabokov: They got democracy
Shi Kuku: right
Kabokov: Or the sketches for it
Shi Kuku: that failed
Kabokov: It's amazing how everything points to a support for dictators
Shi Kuku: or that idea in general
Kabokov: Yeah
Shi Kuku: that minorities controlling majorities is ok
Kabokov: It's preferred
Shi Kuku: or that force is a legitimate way for people to hold power
Kabokov: yeah
Shi Kuku: it's a complete regression in popular philosophy
Shi Kuku: somehow the enlightenment has been overturned
Shi Kuku: monarchies and totatlitarian states have just taken another form
Kabokov: History is irrelevant
Shi Kuku: and now they are the underdog.
posted by Clupbert @ 5:42 PM
18 comments
18 Comments:
An unintended consequence of this attack is:
"Live 8? WTF was that? Kyoto? Nope. Doesn't ring a bell."
I don't like Kyoto and think that Live 8 was a bit idealistic, but that's the way it goes I guess.
Yeah it has overshadowed G8 and Live8 quite a bit. I also hope it shows the UN that we have to hold terorists (dictators included) in much more contempt than we do. We really need to revoke some UN memberships.
Yes, I'm very happy, are you happy?
Moore and Chomsky think that the attacks evened out the world. And dictatorships and terrorists are most definitely the same thing. They use fear to control a populace, they are a small minority controlling a majority, and they care nothing for human rights. Chomsky full-heartedly supported the Soviet Unionwhich was a terrorist state. Moore and people like Bill Maher (Mr. "Why don't we build a monument on sept. 11's site called, "Why they hate us") sympathize with terrorists all day long. The Ward Churchills and the rest of the crazy sect of leftist academia put both of our societies on equal ground and view terrorist attacks as a legitimate way to deal with "american neo-imperialism". Don't even try to bullshit me like they don't think this. They don't just "understand" them, they sympathize with them.
No one said criticism is treason. But when you say things like we deserved to be attacked, then you are just as well advocating the deaths of your own compatriots and that my friend, is treason. If you think we should be attacked, then you need to not be here anymore, you are an enemy of the state. Enemy is defined as one who wants to attack another. When your enemy is one of your own living here, then they are treasonous. Why continue to live here if you want to see Americans dead?
Michael Moore: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."
Oh and I know you read his book 9-11 because you're a brainwashed idiot. In it he claims that terrorism is a state sponsored (Just like I am saying) action and that the US i the biggest perpetrator of it. It seems to me that even he agrees that dictatorships and despots are terrorists (even though he also thinks militaristic democracies like ours can be also). His book has token denials of supporting terrorists but he clearly thinks that terrorist attacks aren't unjustified when we carry them out ourselves.
And there is blood on the hands of every country dumb shit. We have been the principal cause of freedom in the modern world and far outweighs any sort of mistakes we've made.
Chomsky's book 9-11, I switched subjects and didn't say Chomsky.
They have killed way more civilians than american military and they routinely target the general public. Reports also show that the vast majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are foreign fighters. He is condoning their actions is what he is doing and those actions are not that of a noble military, but of deliberate terrorist attacks on iraqi officials, diplomats, and innocent civilians. You are seriously a dumb shit if you dont think terrorism is the main tactic of your "insurgency".
And I didn't just suggest the title, I paraphrased main ideas from the book. Did you miss that part? I think you did because you just ignored it. And I read excerpts of it and saw him talk about it on different programs. I would not give a damn dime to him, are you kidding?
Democracy is the be all end all system of government. Individuals are all equal and the only way to give government authority is for each citizen to be granted their own share of authorization. There is no other way; anything else is tyranny.
The reason we went in to Iraq was not for democracy anyway. It was because Saddam invaded a sovereign nation, made an agreement when we stopped him, and then he broke that agreement. It was completely a legal and just move. Saddam is the one invading nations without just cause and then not living up to the agreement he signed, so fuck you and fuck noam chomsky too. That was such a weak reply too. I am winning yet another argument against you because you just spout rhetoric.
You know what's funny? I saw Team America last night. This thread is so much funnier when you ask:
"What would Team America do?"
Put the F in freedom, which, by some estimates costs a buck 05.
America, fuck yeah!
Wonder if the bombings were done by Hamas. The one bomb at liverpool station (the bus) went off outside the Great Eastern Hotel, where Rudy Giuliani (presumably) and Ben Netanyahu were at an Israeli Investment conference.
Every link you gave were reports by PEOPLE AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ. Are you fucking crazy, do you know what bias is? You give iraqbodycount.net the most credible claim? Read their views, they are the craziest anti-war activists there are. Do you know nothing about bias or conflict of interest? That Lancet study was a piece of shit also and the Lancet is also avidly anti-war. Come up with a credible source for "your argument that I wasn't even trying to make" What I said was that the insurgents killed more civilians than american military which means they killed more civilians than they have killed american military personnel. You completely misunderstood the statement.
It's not speculation either, Chomsky says in every deep interview I read, that the main sponsors of terrorism are the state. Did you read his books? Do you enjoy just ignoring what I say? And you responded to only one misinterpretation. how about responding to my argument for democracy or about how I clearly explain Moore's condoning the Iraq war and how the Iraq war is legal yet both Moore and Chomsky say it is illegal? I made no substantiated claims and I clearly explained my statements and provided a direct quote for Moore, an explanation for both democracy and the Iraq war, and I paraphrase one of Chomsky's MAIN THEMES. You are a douche bag who tries to use my argument that you're a bloviating idiot against me. Sorry John, but you are a complete idiot and a horrible debater.
Call me a dumbass too, but isn't anything that isn't democracy tyranny?
It really is Ben, and I will reply to your last comment a little bit later there John the rhetoric spouting dumbass. I will be in Canada tonight, woohoo!
One wikipedia is not a good source. Wikipedia is a collection of articles put forth by any dolt on the internet. Even the non-foreign insurgents don't wear uniforms, hide in mosque's and hospitals clearly violating rules of war, and intentionally confuse themselves with civilians to US troops. If they weren't such terrorist cowards, then so many civilians wouldn't be killed, but they purposely move the battlefield amongst people's homes. And that Lancet study included "supposed malnutrition" deaths which they said accounted for the vast majority of the "100,000".
And you don't know shit about the Iraq war obviously. The WMD's were not the issue. The issue is that Saddam signed an agreement that allowed for complete and unopposed access for UN weapons inspectors. Hans Blix thought we should have more time, but agreed at the time of war that they weren't getting full cooperation. Here tell me your "legal" opinion of the following situation. A person is on probation and is not allowed to carry a weapon. When the probation officer makes a surprise visit to their house, the ex-con refuses to permit the officer. What happens? The man is arrested and thrown in jail even if there is no weapon found in the house.
And that last point you made has absolutely nothing to do with state sponsored terrorism in terms of Chomsky's definition. i thought you read his books? Do you just say you do, find a couple sentences and then repeat the garbage you find?
Oh and a grammar lesson for you. This sentence, "They have killed way more civilians than american military and they routinely target the general public." What I did was use military as a plural noun. It is the same as if I said They have eaten more sandwiches than hamburgers. I don't think you know that military is a plural noun already.
The Palestinians managed to wrangle $3 billion out of the G8 deal.
http://tinyurl.com/bmveu
Oh, and that reminds me: if you guys are posting long links, use tinyurl.com
You can drag the link to your toolbar to make any long url tiny.
THE TIGER SAID: " Call me a dumbass too, but isn't anything that isn't democracy tyranny?"
Well, there is such a thing as the 'tyranny of the majority', or the 'tyranny of the minority' if you are familiar with Tranzis.
Anything that does not respect the liberty and sovereignty of the person is probably tyranny - democracy (in bad cases) included.
Yeah but his logic still holds true. Non-democracy is tyranny even if democracy can possibly be one.
Generally speaking, yes.
The "minutemen" in Iraq who are killing civilians and US Military aren't even Iraqis; they are from neighboring countries trying to stir up shit. If the Iraqis were simply left alone their transition from dictatorship to democracy would be seamless.
I didn't read through every single comment so if that was already pointed out then I apologize for the redundancy.
Post a Comment
<< Home