Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

clark · 2005-07-15 13:01:45

People who kill themselves like this are usually doing it for a reason.

Generally, it is to affect a change, and an extreme action such as this is done usually because the individual feels powerless to affect change in any other meaningful way.

This behavior is more prevalent in young men. There is no difference really between high school kids like the ones at Columbine, or Timothy McVeigh, or the Unabomber, IRA terrorists, Columbia rebels, or your average suicide bomber.

The less empowered an individual (or group) feels the more likely they are to act out in a violent way. It is a symptom of something larger.

A solution is to empower individuals and groups so they don't see these actions as a solution. If individuals and groups can see other means, and see them as viable alternatives, most will choose a different approach.

It's why the military in Iraq is calling for a political solution for the Sunni- it is the only way to really end the violence. It is the solution for the British and Irish conflict. It is the solution for the Israeli and Palestinian conflict.

You will never stop it, but you can reduce it, and the only real way to do that is to reach out and incorporate the disenfranchised and let them be heard.

BWhite · 2005-07-15 13:20:37

Anger combined with a sense of helplessness. Just stomping on 'em increases both.

BWhite · 2005-07-15 13:21:30

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs. … 80/1002]Uh oh

Palomar · 2005-07-15 13:29:00

Anger combined with a sense of helplessness. Just stomping on 'em increases both.

*Okay, I'll ask again:

Why didn't we wring our hands over how ANGRY Timothy McVeigh might have been? Or Terry Nichols? Or is hand-wringing only for non-white, non-Christian terrorists? Can't stop all the anger in the world, nor the countless ways in which a person might become angry and later do something foolish. :-\ At what point do we get sick and tired of "oh their poor, poor hurt feelings" and start concerning ourselves more with their victims -and- means of protecting future potential victims?

And also: I'm not advocating "stomping" anyone.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-07-15 13:30:45

In Europe starting about the 1580s there became less and less tolerance of the various Christian faiths that where present. This period is called the religous wars and really culminated in the 30years war in what is now Germany. These wars killed more people than the 1st and 2nd world wars together.

It was the religous strife of the period that made more and more people emigrate to new lands like the USA and South Africa.

Does not seem that anyhting was sorted by the peace of Westphalia does it.

clark · 2005-07-15 13:40:10

Hey Bill, I read that article about the adoption, and then I checked out the Statement of Faith that is the source of the problem.

It's all about the Pope! :laugh:

Jesus redeems sin and Scripture is the word of god. Just more disagreeing because you don't agree the right way...

BWhite · 2005-07-15 14:27:00

Anger combined with a sense of helplessness. Just stomping on 'em increases both.
*Okay, I'll ask again:
Why didn't we wring our hands over how ANGRY Timothy McVeigh might have been? Or Terry Nichols? Or is hand-wringing only for non-white, non-Christian terrorists? Can't stop all the anger in the world, nor the countless ways in which a person might become angry and later do something foolish. :-\ At what point do we get sick and tired of "oh their poor, poor hurt feelings" and start concerning ourselves more with their victims -and- means of protecting future potential victims?
And also: I'm not advocating "stomping" anyone.
--Cindy

Hand wringing is 100% beside the point. Its not about morality. Its about prudence.

Do you taunt or tease an angry dog, or bait a bear? No, not unless you are an idiot.

We treat Muslims ike dogs (chains on their necks, doing tricks) and then whine when they bite.

= = =

Humilate the young males of a society (any society) and they will bite back. Increase their sense of powerlessness and they will find clever ways to bite back - - human smart bombs.

If humanity were invaded by "benevolent" space aliens and boys from Las Cruces became suicide bombers you would cheer them on.

Edited By BWhite on 1121459411

Palomar · 2005-07-15 14:48:27

*Whatever.

It's all our fault. Okay...

(Can't be any of that "it takes two" business going on, nope. Can't expect anyone to take responsibility for their actions and reactions, nope.)

And your aliens and Las Cruces comparison?...I don't think so. Nice try, though.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-15 14:55:33

*Whatever.
It's all our fault. Okay...
(Can't be any of that "it takes two" business going on, nope)
And your aliens and Las Cruces comparison?...I don't think so.
--Cindy

Who ever said it was either / or ?

Palomar · 2005-07-15 15:10:01

*Some of it can't be on the basis of being ignorant and brainwashed?

Religious intolerance (i.e. anyone who disagrees with their interpretation of the Koran deserves to be killed)?

The fact that the U.S. and West (the "Great Satan") are wealthy and progressive, whereas these "Chosen of Allah" live in backwards and impoverished nations? An enemy who is more blessed and better off isn't going to provoke envy?

If all their anger/bitterness (which causes them to kill) stems from humiliation, how do we explain cold-blooded murderers like Tex Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins? Charles Manson was abused and humiliated throughout life; he'd fit your description. What about the people who willingly murdered for him -- who (based on Vince Bugliosi's book) -- came from upper middle-class, stable, good homes? What caused Pat, Tex and Susan to be oh-so angry and act like terrorists?

Is it just about humiliation and resultant anger? If so, do those apply to McVeigh and Nichols as well?

Not all of it is due to hurt feelings and nursed grudges, IMO. And there are always alternatives to dealing with anger.

Some of these terrorists can't just be -- by nature -- rotten or apathetic or sociopathic or mentally disturbed?

--Cindy

P.S.: Some (not all) Muslim cultures teach it is okay to murder "the infidel" (anyone who disagrees with their religion and its laws) and also that a woman who merely raises her hands/arms in a self-protective manner to ward off her husband's fists should die. Or if a young woman is "compromised" it's okay for a brother/father/male cousin to kill her for "dishonoring" the family. Certain tribes in Pakistan order the gang rapes of women whose male relatives have allegedly committed some wrong. Flaws in the culture? I'd say so. What else are they capable of? Must be lots of really angry people over there...

clark · 2005-07-15 16:42:28

Some of these terrorists can't just be -- by nature -- rotten or apathetic or sociopathic or mentally disturbed?

Sure they can. But then, it would really blow the class average if they all were.

Sociopathy is not a normal state. It occurs in small numbers in population groups. To assume that thousands of muslims are all sociopaths defies common sense.

So a few are nuts. And a few is all it takes to fly planes into buildings, or take hostages, or behead civilians, or wipe out a throng of children asking for candy.

But not all are nuts, and many make, from their perspective mind you, a sacrifice in order to effect change. They feel powerless and don't see an alternative.

Which is exactly why smart people are calling for dialogue, and for inclusion of the disenfranchised in order to provide a legitimate alternative. This is one of the fundamental strengths of a democracy- the abilty to provide a platform for non-violent action to affect change and have your voice heard.

When human beings feel they have their backs to a wall, and feel threatened (i.e. the flight option of fight or flight response is denied) they will lash out.

There are two options to dealing with this situation- one is to try and provide a constructive non violent outlet for people to feel empowered and to have their voices heard. The other is to crush them completely and utterly through a system of force and constant security.

The last option is unsustainable given the rise of technology. As our technology base increases, the power of individuals to maximize carnage among the group makes total security almost impossible. The group will wear itself out trying to cover every contingency, but it will only take a few, or even one individual to slip past the system.

Americans should know this, it's our history. A bunch of disenfranchised British subjects got fed up, and revolted. They revolted because they saw no other option to have their voices heard.

Grypd · 2005-07-15 17:38:39

Some of these terrorists can't just be -- by nature -- rotten or apathetic or sociopathic or mentally disturbed?

There is one interesting fact that has been found out by the police. This is that 3 of the bombers had return tickets (these being the ones on the Tube trains) and that there bombs exploded exactly at the same time. Then there was the last who deliberatly set his bomb off a lot later than the others.

There is the possibility that three of the bombers did not believe they where to be suicide bombers at all. That they where deliberately misled into becoming the sacrificial bombers, it is also likely that though the security operation would have quickly caught up with them that they did not really understand this. And at least one of the bombers was considered to be "a bit slow" in the mental stakes.

So they where sociopaths who hated mainstream British society and its tolerance for all creeds but who came from a society where in the past racial incidents where common. But now as a society Britain is a lot more tolerant and for a long time I thought this was for the good. After the bombs though there has been a lot of talk as to where Britain should really stand in these circumstances and rascist incidents are definitly are on the up.

So a few are nuts. And a few is all it takes to fly planes into buildings, or take hostages, or behead civilians, or wipe out a throng of children asking for candy.

The incident with the children is one of the most horrific instances of the many in Iraq but it does seem to have been rather ignored or at least not too highlited in the west. This is not the case though in the middle east where it has been headline news for the last few nights. This one incident has dramatically reduced the support the insurgents had amongst mainstream Sunni in Iraq and Syria and Jordan. Sometimes the most horrible incidents happen and good things come out of it and I can only hope that this is one such incident, though I would not have wished it on anyone.

Which is exactly why smart people are calling for dialogue, and for inclusion of the disenfranchised in order to provide a legitimate alternative

Well since the majority Sunni population did not exactly vote this left the minority Shi'te and Kurd in a lot stronger position inside the elected Iraqi goverment. Of course there own fault but somehow telling a people, "but you did not vote so the consequences are your own" does not exactly work too well does it.

The last option is unsustainable given the rise of technology. As our technology base increases, the power of individuals to maximise carnage among the group makes total security almost impossible.

Do you know the explosives made by the London bombers where from easy to access materials and formed TATP or Triacetone triperoxide. The UK has some of the most stringent anti explosives laws of any country and a long experience of there misuse, but modern chemicals and a bit of knowledge go far too far. And one other symptom of TATP is its lack of an odour (and detection) which is why the Shoe bomber tried to use it.

Americans should know this, it's our history. A bunch of disenfranchised British subjects got fed up, and revolted. They revolted because they saw no other option to have their voices heard.

Heh, and here was me thinking it was a simple power grab they wanted more power and got it not to mention a profit motive. I could even go so far to ask about slaveowning, but....

(Of course I understand if anything is bound to get our American cousins riled up it would be that last statement, But hey I like being perverse sometimes and getting someone really angry often tells you more about that person than many reasonable questions.)

clark · 2005-07-15 17:41:49

(Of course I understand if anything is bound to get our American cousins riled up it would be that last statement, But hey I like being perverse sometimes and getting someone really angry often tells you more about the person than many reasonable questions)

Not at all! True blue Americans all hate paying taxes, you degenerate wanker.

And as our DARPA created internet porn attests, we like bondage.

Grypd · 2005-07-15 17:50:25

(Of course I understand if anything is bound to get our American cousins riled up it would be that last statement, But hey I like being perverse sometimes and getting someone really angry often tells you more about the person than many reasonable questions)
Not at all! True blue Americans all hate paying taxes, you degenerate wanker.

Lol

Explains why your economy is in a mess and you produce 25% + of the greenhouse gases of the world.

Oh and since im Scottish and that it has been calculated that over 80% of the American population claim descent from Scottish ancestors, where does that leave you :laugh:

clark · 2005-07-15 17:52:10

With ancestors smart enough to get the hell off that damp dank hole of an island.

We took care of the British, what's your exscuse? :laugh:

clark · 2005-07-15 17:53:47

Sing it with me:

Oh, Britania...! Oh wait... :laugh:

Grypd · 2005-07-15 18:08:19

Back to the bad news

Yesterday 10 men where found in the outskirts of Baghdad, They had been handcuffed then shot. The difference was these men where Sunni rather than Shia and that it was likely that members of the newly formed police did it.

This is not uncommen now as bodies are found daily and its probabily due as the Sunni have supported the insurgency where the minority Shia became the majority in the newly formed Iraqi police and armed forces. In Saddams days the Shia where the minority and where often the victims of such terror tactics.

I have said this before that Iraq seems to me to be gearing up for a major civil war when the Coalition leaves and this is just one more example of the truly deep down mess that is there.

Then again the area where the Sunni live is of very little commercial or financial interest to us in the west.

Edit Grypd
One of the Sunni who had been executed has been found to have been a cleric.

clark · 2005-07-15 18:28:27

Gearing up for civil war? The body count for Iraqi's is about 800 month, I would say they are a bit beyond "gearing".

The insurgents are mainly Sunni. The police force is mainly Shia. It is civil war, more or less.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-07-15 21:44:52

Bill:-

Its not about morality. Its about prudence.
Do you taunt or tease an angry dog, or bait a bear? No, not unless you are an idiot.

Prudence is good, to a point.
But is that what they called it when Nazi troops marched into the demilitarized Rhineland in 1936, or when Nazi troops annexed Austria and seized the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in 1938?
When does prudence become appeasement and turn around and bite you in the a***?

Cindy:-

P.S.: Some (not all) Muslim cultures teach it is okay to murder "the infidel" (anyone who disagrees with their religion and its laws) and also that a woman who merely raises her hands/arms in a self-protective manner to ward off her husband's fists should die. Or if a young woman is "compromised" it's okay for a brother/father/male cousin to kill her for "dishonoring" the family. Certain tribes in Pakistan order the gang rapes of women whose male relatives have allegedly committed some wrong. Flaws in the culture? I'd say so. What else are they capable of? Must be lots of really angry people over there...

This is the doctrine of the Islamic extremists who are stirring up this violence or participating in it. This is the social structure they want us all to follow. They know it will never happen but feel obliged to attack us anyway because we disagree with them.
Bin Laden attacked us because American infidels were defiling the Land of the Prophet by their presence. American troops were withdrawn from Saudi Arabia and now Bin Laden attacks us because Muslims were driven out of Al Andalus (Spain) centuries ago!
A logically consistent plan to advance their demands?
No. There are no logically attainable demands; no demands at all, except for the annihilation of America, and all the Jews, and the Talibanization of the whole world - none of which is ever going to happen.

Clark:-

To assume that thousands of muslims are all sociopaths defies common sense.

True. But thousands are apparently in thrall to a sociopathic and totalitarian branch of a world religion - a much more dangerous situation all together.

But not all are nuts, and many make, from their perspective mind you, a sacrifice in order to effect change. They feel powerless and don't see an alternative.

Effect change? No societal change they want in the West will be effected by killing New Yorkers, Londoners, Spaniards, Australians, or anybody else.
They feel powerless all right; powerless to impose their medieval interpretation of Islam on those of us who prefer living in the 21st century.
What alternative don't they see? They don't see the alternative of living their own lives and letting us live ours? They don't see the alternative of worshipping God in their own way and leaving us to do the same? They don't see the alternative of treating women as human beings instead of disposable commodities? They see only one option - to kill everyone (Muslim or otherwise) who doesn't share their insanely narrow worldview? To achieve what?
Answer: Nothing but bloodshed. Because they have no achievable goal besides that!

...smart people are calling for dialogue, and for inclusion of the disenfranchised in order to provide a legitimate alternative.
...to provide a platform for non-violent action to affect [sic] change and have your voice heard.
...provide a constructive non violent outlet for people to feel empowered and to have their voices heard.
A bunch of disenfranchised British subjects got fed up, and revolted. They revolted because they saw no other option to have their voices heard.

The usual fallacious nonsense spouted by the Western liberal intellectuals and media, who can't see the wood for the trees.
If Islamofascists are 'disenfranchized' (great buzzword!) in today's world, it's because their own fanatical religious intolerance separates them from mainstream civilization. It's their own doing - no one else's.
(Comparing them to the American revolutionaries is a specious argument because the American settlers had understandable grievances and logical attainable goals.)
There's no point in somehow 'allowing' them to "have their voices heard". They're not trying to negotiate some kind of accommodation with liberal Western democracy or the Jewish people ... this is where the breast-beating, guilt-ridden, "mea culpa" brigade lose their grip on reality over and over again, despite the glaring facts staring them in the face.
These Islamic extremist murderers want all Jews killed and the rest of us to abandon liberal democracy and follow Sharia Law. Negotiation is not part of the deal!
If these people "have their voices heard", as it's so quaintly and oh-so-reasonably put, all you'll hear - aside from the barking of orders pertaining to totally unacceptable religious, political and social demands - is silence. That's why they're blowing people up.
Get it?

We're fighting a long slow drawn-out war against a foe we can't see. We can create strategies and carry out undercover and/or military actions, but there's no feasible defence against an invisible and implacable enemy with no coherent agenda we can ever come close to dealing with.
This is a problem which can only be solved within Islam itself - when enough Imams finally see that illogical bloodshed (even against their own brothers and sisters) in a war without an attainable cause, or indeed any sane cause at all, is unacceptable.
In the meantime, free peoples all over the world will simply have to absorb hit after hit from these murderers. We just have to understand that intermittent terrorist attacks are part of sharing the world with rogue elements of a large religion.

clark · 2005-07-15 23:50:39

Now who is engaging in specious arguments?

True. But thousands are apparently in thrall to a sociopathic and totalitarian branch of a world religion - a much more dangerous situation all together.

Thousands, eh? That would explain the many, many, many extremists that are pouring into our nice free and open societies, right? How is it in Australia? America? The US? Europe?

You make this off hand remark, "oh look, the boogey-man, cower in fright. Come and fight!" Well done.

You are flippant and say thousands, and if that were the case, the body count would be much higher in our societies. What we see, what we experience, are a few individuals, be they twelve, or four, or six, or just one- committing these crimes. Yet somehow, these few individuals with a warped interpretation of a major world religion are such a threat that they represent thousands upon thousands of barbarians standing outside our gates! Look out, our very way of life is in danger!

No chicken little, the sky is not falling.

The muslims are fighting on their own land, the same as you would do if Australia was invaded by China.

Effect change? No societal change they want in the West will be effected by killing New Yorkers, Londoners, Spaniards, Australians, or anybody else.

They are not trying to change us. Generally, from their perspective, they are trying to establish their own right to choose their own course. Muslim history for the last few centuries has been one of them getting their asses handed to them and told to shut up and sit in the back of the bus.

I am not trying to write an apology for these people, but from their point of view they are attacking those who have supported those who opprsed them. They attack those who are invading their lands. A few are captilizng on the situation to fit their agenda, and the US and her allies are generally falling for it.

The terroists were not in Iraq until we went there. And now they use it as a pretext to rally support to their cause and to give themselves a platform on which to legitimize themselves.

Huundreds were not voluentering for suicide until after we invaded. Did you have car bombs goint off in Sydney? Did the US? No. But 9 Saudi's, 12 individuals now represent a major looming threat to our way of life. It is a fools argument.

If Islamofascists are 'disenfranchized' (great buzzword!) in today's world, it's because their own fanatical religious intolerance separates them from mainstream civilization. It's their own doing - no one else's.
(Comparing them to the American revolutionaries is a specious argument because the American settlers had understandable grievances and logical attainable goals.)

Right, because the Islamic society has had the opportunity to plot their own course. Maybe I misremeber the last 50 years, but their world was carved up and used as pawns by Western powers. Bin Laden was trained by the US during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Many of these middle eastern countries have been opprsed by governments supported by western powers. It's convienant to forget our role in helping to forge this situation.

Look, your stance is pretty straightforward. There is no room for dialogue. It is an unsustainable position. The Jews learned it, the British learned it, the French learned it, and now the US is learning it. Maybe one day your people will learn it.

My point is simply that all those who fight us do not neccessarily want to fight us to the death in some clash of civilizations. Those that do are a small minorty. Right now, the way we are behaving, we are empowering this small group and making the situation worse for ourselves.

Palomar · 2005-07-16 04:41:45

Bill:-
Its not about morality. Its about prudence.
Do you taunt or tease an angry dog, or bait a bear? No, not unless you are an idiot.
Prudence is good, to a point.
But is that what they called it when Nazi troops marched into the demilitarized Rhineland in 1936, or when Nazi troops annexed Austria and seized the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in 1938?
When does prudence become appeasement and turn around and bite you in the a***?
Cindy:-
P.S.: Some (not all) Muslim cultures teach it is okay to murder "the infidel" (anyone who disagrees with their religion and its laws) and also that a woman who merely raises her hands/arms in a self-protective manner to ward off her husband's fists should die. Or if a young woman is "compromised" it's okay for a brother/father/male cousin to kill her for "dishonoring" the family. Certain tribes in Pakistan order the gang rapes of women whose male relatives have allegedly committed some wrong. Flaws in the culture? I'd say so. What else are they capable of? Must be lots of really angry people over there...
This is the doctrine of the Islamic extremists who are stirring up this violence or participating in it. This is the social structure they want us all to follow. They know it will never happen but feel obliged to attack us anyway because we disagree with them.
Bin Laden attacked us because American infidels were defiling the Land of the Prophet by their presence. American troops were withdrawn from Saudi Arabia and now Bin Laden attacks us because Muslims were driven out of Al Andalus (Spain) centuries ago!
A logically consistent plan to advance their demands?
No. There are no logically attainable demands; no demands at all, except for the annihilation of America, and all the Jews, and the Talibanization of the whole world - none of which is ever going to happen.
Effect change? No societal change they want in the West will be effected by killing New Yorkers, Londoners, Spaniards, Australians, or anybody else.
They feel powerless all right; powerless to impose their medieval interpretation of Islam on those of us who prefer living in the 21st century.
What alternative don't they see? They don't see the alternative of living their own lives and letting us live ours? They don't see the alternative of worshipping God in their own way and leaving us to do the same? They don't see the alternative of treating women as human beings instead of disposable commodities? They see only one option - to kill everyone (Muslim or otherwise) who doesn't share their insanely narrow worldview? To achieve what?
Answer: Nothing but bloodshed. Because they have no achievable goal besides that!
...smart people are calling for dialogue, and for inclusion of the disenfranchised in order to provide a legitimate alternative.
...to provide a platform for non-violent action to affect [sic] change and have your voice heard.
...provide a constructive non violent outlet for people to feel empowered and to have their voices heard.
A bunch of disenfranchised British subjects got fed up, and revolted. They revolted because they saw no other option to have their voices heard.
The usual fallacious nonsense spouted by the Western liberal intellectuals and media, who can't see the wood for the trees.
If Islamofascists are 'disenfranchized' (great buzzword!) in today's world, it's because their own fanatical religious intolerance separates them from mainstream civilization. It's their own doing - no one else's.
(Comparing them to the American revolutionaries is a specious argument because the American settlers had understandable grievances and logical attainable goals.)
There's no point in somehow 'allowing' them to "have their voices heard". They're not trying to negotiate some kind of accommodation with liberal Western democracy or the Jewish people ... this is where the breast-beating, guilt-ridden, "mea culpa" brigade lose their grip on reality over and over again, despite the glaring facts staring them in the face.
These Islamic extremist murderers want all Jews killed and the rest of us to abandon liberal democracy and follow Sharia Law. Negotiation is not part of the deal!
If these people "have their voices heard", as it's so quaintly and oh-so-reasonably put, all you'll hear - aside from the barking of orders pertaining to totally unacceptable religious, political and social demands - is silence. That's why they're blowing people up.
Get it?
We're fighting a long slow drawn-out war against a foe we can't see. We can create strategies and carry out undercover and/or military actions, but there's no feasible defence against an invisible and implacable enemy with no coherent agenda we can ever come close to dealing with.
This is a problem which can only be solved within Islam itself - when enough Imams finally see that illogical bloodshed (even against their own brothers and sisters) in a war without an attainable cause, or indeed any sane cause at all, is unacceptable.
In the meantime, free peoples all over the world will simply have to absorb hit after hit from these murderers. We just have to understand that intermittent terrorist attacks are part of sharing the world with rogue elements of a large religion.

*Nice to see you again at New Mars, Shaun.

A few additional comments: The Islamoterrorists are cultural empirialists. They claim to hear voices from Allah telling them to do this and that. Many Muslims denounce and reject these intolerant thugs.

Some folks here want to chalk the destructive behaviors of the terrorists up to their feeling humiliated.

I see their destructiveness as being an unfortunately "natural" result of their cultural values and mores. Most of these young men grew up in male-dominant/permissive cultures where women are treated as worse than dogs. They're socialized and conditioned to be brutes and bullies to the very people whom they marry, who bear and nurse and rear their young. Extremist religion (of any variety) always preaches absolute obedience and submission of all its adherents or you'll burn in hell. There's no either/or with these folks.

If it's true that the character of a society can be determined by how it treats its women, those societies have damned themselves. If the systematic beating and killing of their women (for any -perceived- [even unproven] violation of their religious laws) is "okay" then what are the chances they'll have mercy on anyone else? Not much.

Support for bin Laden is falling. Support for suicide bombers is falling. (See article I posted a few days ago in this thread, perhaps no more than 2 pages back). Many good, humane Muslims are denouncing and decrying the actions of the terrorists, are calling for intercultural unity and cooperation. It doesn't seem to me they are sitting around wringing their hands and worried about some thug's "poor hurt widdle fewings."

--Cindy

P.S.:

Shaun to Bill: When does prudence become appeasement and turn around and bite you in the a***?

Excellent question.

BWhite · 2005-07-16 08:17:51

Fie! I say - - a plague on both houses.

I renounce BOTH the Islamo-fascist 13th century nut-jobs like bin Laden AND Western fascism-lite wannabes that people like Cindy and Shaun cheerlead for.

Cindy, Shaun WHY do you seek to empower al Qaeda? Do you hate America?

Appease? No! - -al Qaeda is exterminated easily if we do it smart.

But once al Qaeda is gone, the Right loses its cudgel to pound liberals with, therefore you inflate bin Laden into something bigger than he is.

Palomar · 2005-07-16 08:38:04

I renounce BOTH the Islamo-fascist 13th century nut-jobs like bin Laden AND Western fascism-lite wannabes that people like Cindy and Shaun cheerlead for.
Cindy, Shaun WHY do you seek to empower al Qaeda? Do you hate America?

*Bill, you need to get a grip.

The same could be asked of you. Why do you seek to empower Al-Qaeda? Do you hate America?

By all means, keep making excuses for the terrorists and appeasing them if it makes you feel any better.

If we were all Jews on a train to Auschwitz, you'd be damning *us* for the predicament and trying to figure out why Hitler feels humiliated and angry.

Appeasement and making excuses for others' destructive behavior helps no one; in fact, it simply makes the problem worse. You want to molly-coddle thugs and always blame their victims (?), that'd be your prerogative I guess. You want to be an enabler? That too is your prerogative.

Too bad you can't try and find some common ground with myself or Shaun in these regards. You're so quick and willing to find common ground with others in these debates, whose opinions also differ from your own...

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-16 09:08:50

Appeasement is your issue not mine. I never advocated appeasement.

Please apologize for saying I ever did.

BWhite · 2005-07-16 09:12:51

Appeasement is a strawman, a slander used by the Right as a weapon against the Left.

Read my post. Appeasement? No.

Extermination of al Qaeda. Quickly and efficiently.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2005-07-15 13:01:45

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#252 2005-07-15 13:20:37

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#253 2005-07-15 13:21:30

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#254 2005-07-15 13:29:00

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#255 2005-07-15 13:30:45

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#256 2005-07-15 13:40:10

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#257 2005-07-15 14:27:00

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#258 2005-07-15 14:48:27

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#259 2005-07-15 14:55:33

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#260 2005-07-15 15:10:01

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#261 2005-07-15 16:42:28

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#262 2005-07-15 17:38:39

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#263 2005-07-15 17:41:49

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#264 2005-07-15 17:50:25

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#265 2005-07-15 17:52:10

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#266 2005-07-15 17:53:47

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#267 2005-07-15 18:08:19

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#268 2005-07-15 18:28:27

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#269 2005-07-15 21:44:52

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#270 2005-07-15 23:50:39

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#271 2005-07-16 04:41:45

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#272 2005-07-16 08:17:51

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#273 2005-07-16 08:38:04

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#274 2005-07-16 09:08:50

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#275 2005-07-16 09:12:51

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Board footer