Political Potpourri VIII

Palomar · 2005-07-25 18:34:12

But also remember that Brazilian sentiment is damn important here. After all, they are considering whether to forge much closer ties to Communist China, they have had interest in becoming a nuclear power and they are unhappy that the US is blocking their seat on the UN Security Council.

*Excuse me.

The shooting we're discussing occurred in England. It involved English cops.

It has nothing to do with the U.S.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-07-25 18:41:47

LO
Don't you think that a man that has decided to commit a suicide trying to kill as many as possible round him would be fu..ing calm and would have seen police officers running at him with some sardonic smile while activating his bomb ?

Palomar · 2005-07-25 18:41:51

You react strangely with your guts and not your brain for someone who loves lumières.

*And just how much do you know about the 18th century Enlightenment and its personages?

So in order to be a genuine lover of lumieres, I must agree with you?

The Enlightenment thinkers taught me to think rationally. Your over-reactions of:

"I don't mind going to London even with terrorists' threat, but if is added a mad non uniformed cops threat, I'll go elsewhere."
and
"I think that the 'shoot at the head' policy is indeed criminal and stupid."

aren't rational, IMO. You're attempting to portray the British cops as cold-blooded butchers. I say that's unfair and untrue.

Given the current climate in London, that shooting doesn't surprise me. Did that student "deserve" to be shot for not renewing his visa? No, of course not. But he didn't renew it, therefore was in the country illegally; the cops yelled at him to stop running and he did not...and shortly after the 2nd round of bombings occurred.

You're entitled to your opinion of me. I won't lose any sleep over it.

Voltaire, Diderot and their colleagues were not stupid and naive men. Facing reality squarely and unflinchingly were their trademarks. I'm all for that.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-07-25 18:53:34

Something to ask yourself, and seriously, it might not mean much...

If the police thought he was such a threat that they would monitor his movements, why would they wait to apprehend him?

They followed this guy to the train station, and then suddenly decided that they should stop him? Why not do it sooner?

I don't have the answers, and honestly, I am not blaming the police for what they did. I find it tragic, but understandable. It could have been avoided by some choices of the individual who was killed.

But I can't get over this thought: if he was such a threat that warranted immediate execution, why didn't they stop him before he got to the train station?

Anyone have some insight?

DonPanic · 2005-07-25 19:33:57

LO
@ecrasez_l_infame
I don't live in some clean WASP country town far from any muslim, I'm not lost in theories.
My neibourgs are from all parts of the world, and there is a synagogue at the very corner or my avenue.
I live in Paris where we had our terrorist attacks, and we wait for some more terrorists attacks at any moment.
Each day, there are metro traffic stops and alarms for some forgotten luggage.
I feel as a global world citizen and side with everyone one living in megalopolis.

This is my avenue on bric à brac market day

He is my fruits and vegetables retailer, he's a muslim, and among the best men I know.
When he has seen you twice, you're his brother
"you've got no money, never mind, pay me when you can, in'sh'Allah"

You're attempting to portray the British cops as cold-blooded butchers.

NO ! I like the british cops much better than our "flics"
Precisely, theses police officers lost their cold blood, and I do comdemn the shoot-at-the-head orders given to them.
I live within two hours from London I guess I know it better than you, I know where Sheperd Bush is for having taken the metro there.
Siding with NewYorkers or Londoners do not oblige me to side with stupid orders or stupid politics.

BWhite · 2005-07-25 19:45:49

But also remember that Brazilian sentiment is damn important here. After all, they are considering whether to forge much closer ties to Communist China, they have had interest in becoming a nuclear power and they are unhappy that the US is blocking their seat on the UN Security Council.
*Excuse me.
The shooting we're discussing occurred in England. It involved English cops.
It has nothing to do with the U.S.
--Cindy

In Brazil (as I read) they see the UK and Blair as a poodle obeying the US. UK is US puppet.

Read some Brazilian newspapers on the subject.

srmeaney · 2005-07-26 03:48:42

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one, don't they? The lives and safety of many other people were potentially at great risk.

The needs of the one are the needs of every one. Every one has the right to live. Even the stupid.

What he didnt have the right to be was gunned down without question by a government that didnt do its job in the first place. Their job was to keep him out (if he was an illegal). Their job was to stop him from skipping a fair.

Where was the armed officer in body armor at the front ticket-gate and the large volume Quantum interference detector tracking objects of unusual mass and density?

So while we are executing people who cant be trusted, now would be a good time to round up every government employee who didint do their job, every elected official who ever condoned terrorism (and insurgency) as a way to get what they want from others, every arms dealer and manufacturer who got rich off death, Every one who has ever donated money to some religious agency who used it to finance the fight againt communism or whate-ever that stopped them getting rich, charge them with Treason and isolate them from civilization for all time. No negotiation. No rights. No more equal share of the benifits and responsibilities of citizenship.

C M Edwards · 2005-07-26 05:34:46

In Brazil (as I read) they see the UK and Blair as a poodle obeying the US. UK is US puppet.
Read some Brazilian newspapers on the subject.

That particular lack of understanding is Brazil's problem, not ours.

clark · 2005-07-26 05:42:54

I believe where Bill is coming from is pointing out the continuing PR disaster that is the War on Terrorism.

All part of the winning "hearts and minds."

We may not be able to change what people think, or all people, but we do need to work at improving the perception of our actions. By doing so, we improve out standing, and win over allies, and also defang the terrorists by making it harder for them to recruit.

Palomar · 2005-07-26 05:49:32

In Brazil (as I read) they see the UK and Blair as a poodle obeying the US. UK is US puppet.
Read some Brazilian newspapers on the subject.
That particular lack of understanding is Brazil's problem, not ours.

*That's exactly right, CM.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-26 07:25:59

In Brazil (as I read) they see the UK and Blair as a poodle obeying the US. UK is US puppet.
Read some Brazilian newspapers on the subject.
That particular lack of understanding is Brazil's problem, not ours.
*That's exactly right, CM.
--Cindy

Heh! Lets fight the whole effing world!

My point is that while we pound our chests, China grows stronger.

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-26 07:27:34

Heh, the fascists' wet dream.

clark · 2005-07-26 07:31:29

Heh, keeping people on a constant war footing prepares them for massive loss come the Chinese Apocalypse.

Or so I have heard.

Palomar · 2005-07-26 07:39:59

That particular lack of understanding is Brazil's problem, not ours.
*That's exactly right, CM.
--Cindy
Heh! Lets fight the whole effing world!

*So Bill, how do we "change the hearts and minds" of people so completely prejudiced against us? America is evil and rotten, always has been evil and rotten, if something untoward happens in the UK it's -our- fault, yadda yadda, etc., etc.

Sure, we should take measures to be/remain as honorable as possible. But something tells me some folks just won't be pleased nor fair nor thinking clearly no matter what we do.

There is a lot of prejudice against the U.S. The Brazilians think the U.K. is our "poodle" -- so do lots of other nations. Group think? Go along with the majority opinion? Could it be?

I guess now if an Englishwoman shoplifts I'm somehow to blame as well, since her nation is my nation's "poodle." How far does such a silly sentiment go?

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-26 07:57:48

Step #1 - - DO NOT excuse the shooting until after the investigation.

Step #2 - - Acknowledge that more people die from lightning than from terrorism. bin Laden is as evil as Hitler and 1/100000000000000th as powerful.

Don't overreact.

Acknowledge again that more people die from lightning strikes than from terrorism.

Step #3 - - Hearts and minds? Start by accepting that "meaning well" isn't good enough. With unprecedented power comes unprecedented global responsibility.

The backward looking elements in Islam are a difficult problem. We need to be smart since they glorify martyrs. Being "tough" plays into bin Laden's hands.

While only a very tiny fraction of Muslims wish to be suicide bombers, collective punishment empowers the radicals. Saying "we didn't mean" to kill innocent children, so therefore its OK, empowers the fanatics.

Is that fair? No. Grow up and deal with it.

America is the most powerful nation in history. THEREFORE, I expect more.

How to bring Islam into the 21st century? Women's rights are the best place to start.

DonPanic · 2005-07-26 08:06:32

LO

I believe where Bill is coming from is pointing out the continuing PR disaster that is the War on Terrorism.

"War on Terrorism" is among the most stupid concepts I've ever heard,
there are terrorisms, Kurds are supposed to be US allies in Iraq and support PKK terrorism against Turkey, member of Nato.
Palestinian and Saddam's intelligence services helped french intelligence services against Iran and Syria inspired terrorists in Lebanon, the same Palestinians being terrorists at Israel.
In Europe, we have IRA, ETA and corsican terrorists with no links with islamist terrorists.
In SriLanka, there is a tamul terrorism, with no religious, just potlitic purposes.
In Kashmir, anti-indian terrorism, very close to the Talibans, formerly supported by Pakistan leaders.
Algerian islamist terrorists set attacks in France much before bin Laden became a leading figure in terrorism.
US administration taking "terror" as a whole acts a an elephant in a porcelain shop.

BWhite · 2005-07-26 08:10:55

Kurd v Turkey is going to be a nasty problem for the US government which prefers "black & white" to gray.

Kurd v Saddam? Sure, no problem.

Kurd v Turkey? What say you, Cindy?

DonPanic · 2005-07-26 08:54:52

how do we "change the hearts and minds" of people so completely prejudiced against us? America is evil and rotten, always has been evil and rotten, if something untoward happens in the UK it's -our- fault, yadda yadda, etc., etc.

First and main should be to stop always supporting Israel as if what's good for Israel is good for USA, and remember that Jerusalem is among the holliest places for the muslims too. Sharon on the mosquee plazza rose hundreds thousand volunteers to be human bombs.
While Israel gives back Gaza, what muslims see is that Israel still extends its territory on west bank stealing palestinian soils.
Then, stopping to think that USA, or France for froggies, are models that can be spread the world over, as USA are trying to impose "democracy" in middle East countries with tribal traditions and family share, then realize that seen by TV screens through US TV serials and TV movies, USA is a model of cynism, violence and gun loving, money and power greed.

Palomar · 2005-07-26 09:06:51

The backward looking elements in Islam are a difficult problem. We need to be smart since they glorify martyrs. Being "tough" plays into bin Laden's hands.
While only a very tiny fraction of Muslims wish to be suicide bombers, collective punishment empowers the radicals. Saying "we didn't mean" to kill innocent children, so therefore its OK, empowers the fanatics.
Is that fair? No. Grow up and deal with it.

*Anything is a pretext for fanatics. Anything. The Iraq war didn't exist in 1975 yet fanatics were hijacking our airplanes, killing civilian passengers and pilots, etc.

Not playing tough would play into bin Laden's hands: "Oh, they're afraid of me. What cowards. See? The Great Satan is afraid of Allah's Chosen."

Frankly, it seems it doesn't matter what we do: We won't conform to their mores, values, religious codes, worldview...therefore we are "infidels" who deserve to be slaughtered.

As I mentioned: Of course we should try to be as upstanding and honorable as possible. And of course they won't care because we're "infidels" who refuse to obey and submit to their ways.

With unprecedented power comes unprecedented global responsibility.

I agree. But that doesn't mean we have to believe every criticism, every "shame on you" finger-wagging hysterical moralizing from people who probably hate us regardless. Let's give them power; let's see what they'd do with it. It's easy for them to criticize, condemn and damn -- they have no real power and so can affect this self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude (they can't prove they would be better).

America is the most powerful nation in history. THEREFORE, I expect more.

So how far do we go in trying to always please everyone else?

See, my problem with some attitudes is similar to this: On a microcosmic level, if it were a matter within your family and dealing with a member who is being constantly denounced, ridiculed, insulted and condemned by classmates/peers and folks in the neighborhood: Do you merely stand idly by and allow your loved one to be treated that way? Do you seek to defend him/her somewhat? Do you raise your voice consistently to join in with the ridicule, condemnation, etc.? I wouldn't. I'd try to see where that family member went wrong, but to join in with the chorus of hecklers? Nope.

There's plenty of "growing up" to be had from all quarters.

I've admitted where the U.S. has been/has done wrong. I continue to question the validity of the Iraq war. Of course, those statements will continue to be ignored by some because apparently I must agree 100% with them "or else."

But I won't join in on the venal "piss on America" party. Protecting what you love is part of the deal, too.

--Cindy

Kurd v Turkey? What say you, Cindy?

Don't know enough about the situation to be able to comment.

DonPanic · 2005-07-26 09:25:19

*Anything is a pretext for fanatics. Anything. The Iraq war didn't exist in 1975 yet fanatics were hijacking our airplanes, killing civilian passengers and pilots, etc.

The exact rethorics Bush and Blair brain trust invented to avoid further questions about the consequences their politics.

So what turned peoples into fanatics ?
Ask yourself and you get the answers

Palomar · 2005-07-26 09:32:08

The exact rethorics Bush and Blair brain trust invented to avoid further questions about the consequences their politics.

*No, actually -- believe it or not -- those are my thoughts. I don't know your age, but I well remember all the airplane hijackings and terrorism of the 1970s and 1980s. I guess those crimes don't matter? We should forget those anti-West terrorist crimes?

So what turned peoples into fanatics ?

Fundamental religion and its attendant intolerances and bigotries.

Same as what occurred in the past with Middle-Ages Christianity and Old Testament Judaism.

Religion is the culprit...like always.

Ask yourself and you get the answers

Just did. Of course, you'll tell me it's all America's fault. Sure, and the Spanish Inquisition of the 1400s was our fault too...right?

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-26 09:38:37

You constantly miss my point. We need to learn from the art of http://www.kodenkanwest.com/philosophy.html]ju-jitsu.

Not playing tough would play into bin Laden's hands: "Oh, they're afraid of me. What cowards. See? The Great Satan is afraid of Allah's Chosen."

Your fear of appearing weak is itself a weakness. al Qaeda is weak, very weak, except for our hysterical reactions.

In ju-jitsu,

it is by the principal of focused suppleness that the weak eventually overcome the strong.

"Standing tough" precludes the flexibility and suppleness required to win. I prefer to WIN rather than indulge my ego with the illusion of being TOUGH.

Frankly, it seems it doesn't matter what we do: We won't conform to their mores, values, religious codes, worldview...therefore we are "infidels" who deserve to be slaughtered.

Now you say it is hopeless, and we truly are powerless to do anything, except maybe kill them all. See, you do fear al Qaeda. Why?

Cindy, maybe one in a million or one in ten million Muslims desire to slaughter infidels. The Muslim fellow who sells DomPanic fruit doesn't desire anyone to die.

= = =

If we Westerners are powerless it is because we lack SELF CONTROL.

If we Westerners are weak it is because we are TOO LAZY to learn another's language or culture.

For years I have criticzed our policy as being INEFFECTUAL. You have interpreted it as moral criticism.

I criticize our FOOLISHNESS not our being EVIL.

= = =

You say you know nothing about Kurd/Turkey.

BEFORE regime change I raised the Kurd/Turkey problem as a reason to be cautious about removing Saddam. Were you foolish for supporting the decision for regime change when you did not know all the potential consequences?

The Hippocratic oath begins: "First, do no harm"

DonPanic · 2005-07-26 09:41:51

I don't know your age,

I'm old enough to remember napalm and orange agent spread over the fellows of the country I was born in.
This has not made of me an antiamerican one because so many US young people demonstrated againts that war.

Of course, you'll tell me it's all America's fault. Sure, and the Spanish Inquisition of the 1400s was our fault too...right?
--Cindy

Caricaritural answers do not add anything to your argumentation, it would be the contrary, if you are kidding, try to be funny.
Better stay on facts.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-26 10:02:41

BEFORE regime change I raised the Kurd/Turkey problem as a reason to be cautious about removing Saddam. Were you foolish for supporting the decision for regime change when you did not know all the potential consequences?

I don't recall Cindy supporting the decision for regime change in the build-up to the war.

Palomar · 2005-07-26 10:26:14

al Qaeda is weak, very weak, except for our hysterical reactions.

*al-Qaeda may be weak now. But what about all those other Islamoterrorist groups/cells? They seem rather active to me, if news headlines are any indication.

Now you say it is hopeless, and we truly are powerless to do anything, except maybe kill them all.

I've never said, directly nor indirectly, anything about "kill them all." :?

The Muslim fellow who sells DomPanic fruit doesn't desire anyone to die.

Yes, I know. Most Muslims are good and law-abiding people who desire peace, health for their families, safety and security.

Cindy, maybe one in a million or one in ten million Muslims desire to slaughter infidels

Well I don't know the exact numbers...but it seems there are enough of them. Why the bombing of Bali for instance? Or other areas on the globe which are anti-American? Some Islamoterrorist groups have claimed responsibility for those acts. Why? It just isn't al-Qaeda.

The Hippocratic oath begins: "First, do no harm"

I wish someone would tell them that.

Bill O'Reilly pointed out the other night that bin Laden claimed (years ago) he was attacking the U.S. -- or wanted to (pre 9/11) -- because of our troops on Saudi soil. We apparently moved our troops off Saudi soil...now it's another problem bin Laden's got which "justifies" his attacking the U.S. And on...and on...

If we broke diplomatic ties completely and 100% with Israel, renounced them and asked public forgiveness for our part in the creation of the Nation of Israel, bin Laden and people like him would find yet another pretext for attack.

They're religious bigots and zealots who want the world to knuckle under to militant/fundamentalist Islamic law and culture. Nothing less will do.

Cobra:

I don't recall Cindy supporting the decision for regime change in the build-up to the war.

Thanks. No, I didn't. I'm just trying to make some lemonade out of all of these lemons. :?

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-07-25 18:34:12

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#52 2005-07-25 18:41:47

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#53 2005-07-25 18:41:51

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#54 2005-07-25 18:53:34

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#55 2005-07-25 19:33:57

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#56 2005-07-25 19:45:49

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#57 2005-07-26 03:48:42

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#58 2005-07-26 05:34:46

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#59 2005-07-26 05:42:54

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#60 2005-07-26 05:49:32

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#61 2005-07-26 07:25:59

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#62 2005-07-26 07:27:34

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#63 2005-07-26 07:31:29

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#64 2005-07-26 07:39:59

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#65 2005-07-26 07:57:48

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#66 2005-07-26 08:06:32

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#67 2005-07-26 08:10:55

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#68 2005-07-26 08:54:52

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#69 2005-07-26 09:06:51

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#70 2005-07-26 09:25:19

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#71 2005-07-26 09:32:08

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#72 2005-07-26 09:38:37

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#73 2005-07-26 09:41:51

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#74 2005-07-26 10:02:41

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#75 2005-07-26 10:26:14

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

Board footer