Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

clark · 2005-07-12 09:26:25

It appears President BUsh also took my advice

Yeah, next he is going to admit he made all these mistakes, and then renounce God and the Fundamentalist Christian Right.

BWhite · 2005-07-12 09:43:13

It appears President BUsh also took my advice
Yeah, next he is going to admit he made all these mistakes, and then renounce God and the Fundamentalist Christian Right.

My ESP messages to nominate Mike Griffin for NASA Administrator worked well enough.

Grypd · 2005-07-12 10:52:58

It appears President BUsh also took my advice
Yeah, next he is going to admit he made all these mistakes, and then renounce God and the Fundamentalist Christian Right.
My ESP messages to nominate Mike Griffin for NASA Administrator worked well enough.

SO you admit it at long last. You and president Bush are on the same wavelength. It explains so much. It explains why you cant stand his policies they are so similar to your own thoughts.

BWhite · 2005-07-12 11:06:57

Yeah, next he is going to admit he made all these mistakes, and then renounce God and the Fundamentalist Christian Right.
My ESP messages to nominate Mike Griffin for NASA Administrator worked well enough.
SO you admit it at long last. You and president Bush are on the same wavelength. It explains so much. It explains why you cant stand his policies they are so similar to your own thoughts.

Nah. The important messages alwasy bounce back with a BUSY signal. :;):

Grypd · 2005-07-12 11:09:05

Police in the UK have raided addresses across the North of England and have done a controlled explosion at one of the addresses. They also believe that they have identified all 4 bombers. But one man has been arrested though not a bomber as the 4 bombers died at the scene of the explosions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4674463.stm]BBC news article

Palomar · 2005-07-12 19:53:52

*Anyone else catch Bill O'Reilly this evening? One segment highlighted the growing battle between families of 9/11 victims and a civil rights lawyer concerning museum-like displays of Native American genocide, black slavery/lynchings in the American south and the Nazi Holocaust within the proposed Freedom Tower monument (of course those incidents were wrong).

I agree with the victims' families organization which is asking Pataki and the NY gov't to have the Freedom Tower exhibits/memorials focused exclusively on the events of 9/11 and its victims...that this isn't about any other social ill and of course other museums/memorials have been founded for those other travesties. The civil rights lawyer is saying there's a freedom of speech/expression issue at stake and the desire is to draw attention to the fight -for- freedom. I certainly see that point, but the victims' families spokesperson is concerned other instances of social ills displayed there will serve to stir up controversy, political feuds and animosities/resentments unrelated to the 9/11 attacks.

If I'd lost a loved one in the WTC, Pentagon or PA airfield that day, due to the terrorist hijackers, I'd want the Freedom Tower to focus entirely on that day and those victims...only.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-07-12 20:36:13

I walk by the WTC every day. That doesn’t mean I have any great insight, or my point of view means anything. Everywhere I turn, I meet people who have lost someone, or who knows someone who died that day. A city full of millions of strangers, and there is this amazing instance of connection.

Anyone who loses someone, one should respect their wishes in how they wish to honor and remember their loss. 9/11 though affected not only individuals and families, it has affected our nation and the world. It's hard to find a definite line that respects what the WTC has become and what the loss personally means to individuals.

I don't necessarily think we should honor or remember the genocide of American Indians or the victims of the holocaust at the WTC. It seems to disjointed. It seems like we are trying to force meaning where it doesn’t exist.

That said, I think that only honoring the victims of 9/11 is too limited for what the WTC now means, and what the event has signified in our history.

If I had my way, I think a fitting tribute that both honors the loss of the victims of 9/11 and establishes the memorial as something with a larger significance would be to inscribe the names of every person who dies as a victim from terrorism, or dies in the line of duty in protecting people from terrorism, world wide.

Terrorism didn't start that day, but that day the world took notice and took a stand. To remember those who died because of it, and died trying to stop it, would be a fitting tribute worthy of the sacrifice, and the loss.

Maybe if we did something like this, in a world full of billions of strangers, we all might find an amazing instance of connection.

Just my 2 cents, and probably not even worth that much. May better heads prevail.

Palomar · 2005-07-13 09:38:07

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050713/ap_ … slam]Uh-oh

*Bullets dipped in pig blood?

--Cindy

C M Edwards · 2005-07-13 09:59:33

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050713/ap_ … slam]Uh-oh
*Bullets dipped in pig blood?
--Cindy

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives … ml]Another urban legend makes national news.

The story about Pershing and pigs blood predates the chain letter. The premise was false then, and it's false now. However, it was cited in a Tom Clancy novel, so perhaps some idiot will try it.

Islamic extrememists do all have spiked teeth and eat children, though, just like the Japanese depicted in 1940's comic books. That part's true. :;):

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-13 10:11:03

*Bullets dipped in pig blood?

I'm reminded of an idea attributed to the Israelis awhile back involving placing jugs of pig fat on busses to deter bombers with delusions of being received in the hereafter. Don't know if anything ever came of it. Somehow the idea of commuters, Jewish or not, sitting next to a tub of pig fat in that climate doesn't seem a practical approach.

From the article linked by Cindy:

"It's troubling to see a governmental organization dedicated to the security of our country promoting culturally and religiously insensitive ideas," said William Youmans, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Santa Clara. "It's very possible to combat terrorism without offending the cultural values of a major world religion."

Where to start. . . First, a "governmental organization" is not promoting "culturally insensitive ideas", individuals within that organization are. Second, what's the problem anyway? They aren't saying "kill all Muslims with pig bullets", just execute terrorists in a manner abhorrent to their professed faith.

Just maybe if these Muslim interest groups would spend as much time condemning the terrorists and railing against them as they do complaining about cultural sensitivity they might do more good for the nation in general as well as Muslims in particular.

Finally, does killing people count as a culturally insensitive idea.

The tour came after peace groups and a state senator questioned whether a new Guard unit had been formed to spy on U.S. citizens and had monitored a Mother's Day anti-war rally. A federal investigation of the allegations is underway.

This also raises an eyebrow. I'm certainly not one to take government surveillance lightly but this complaint is a little silly. Can the government "spy on" on a public rally staged for the explicit purpose of getting attention?

On a more practical level, what would be the logistic costs and complications of procuring and issuing pig-blood bullets to troops in the field? ???

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1121271126

Palomar · 2005-07-13 10:23:12

"It's troubling to see a governmental organization dedicated to the security of our country promoting culturally and religiously insensitive ideas," said William Youmans, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Santa Clara. "It's very possible to combat terrorism without offending the cultural values of a major world religion."
Where to start. . . First, a "governmental organization" is not promoting "culturally insensitive ideas", individuals within that organization are. Second, what's the problem anyway? They aren't saying "kill all Muslims with pig bullets", just execute terrorists in a manner abhorrent to their professed faith.
Just maybe if these Muslim interest groups would spend as much time condemning the terrorists and railing against them as they do complaining about cultural sensitivity they might do more good for the nation in general as well as Muslims in particular.
Finally, does killing people count as a culturally insensitive idea.
The tour came after peace groups and a state senator questioned whether a new Guard unit had been formed to spy on U.S. citizens and had monitored a Mother's Day anti-war rally. A federal investigation of the allegations is underway.
This also raises an eyebrow. I'm certainly not one to take government surveillance lightly but this complaint is a little silly. Can the government "spy on" on a public rally staged for the explicit purpose of getting attention?

*Wish I could add more to your comments than to simply say "I certainly agree."

I'm reminded of an idea attributed to the Israelis awhile back involving placing jugs of pig fat on busses to deter bombers with delusions of being received in the hereafter. Don't know if anything ever came of it.

Given their circumstances, I'd go for it. If the jugs were capped well enough so as not to easily spill from a slight mishap, that sort of thing...

Can't fathom how people in that part of the world cope. I get rattled enough just thinking about it. Yeah, I know they're sort of used to it...I don't want to get used to it.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-07-13 10:23:54

All the silly points aside, I will give you one good reason why this is a stupid idea.

Civilian casulties.

Issue pig-blood bullets and kill a muslim civilian, and you've made a bad situation worse.

of course, this reason is only meaningful if you actually take the discussion seriously. Surely we have more pressing concerns than how to offend the sensibilites of musilim terroists. ???

BWhite · 2005-07-13 10:26:15

Reading about today's bombing of children being given candy I was instantly reminded of Apocolypse Now and this quote:

Kurtz: I've seen horrors... horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that... but you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces. Seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us.

The point of the move, of course, is that Kurtz becomes a monster himself.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-13 10:34:35

Issue pig-blood bullets and kill a muslim civilian, and you've made a bad situation worse.

Certainly we shouldn't issue magazines full of pig-blood ammunition to every infantryman, that would be a PR disaster as well as causing the price of bacon to fluctuate wildly.

While the whole "bullets dipped in pig's blood" thing might be a bit weird, the general idea behind it is valid. We need two prongs in how we deal with this. For average non-extremist Muslims we should be as tolerant and accomodating in their countries as is practical. But for the terrorists, a little bowel wrenching fear is in order. If they believe that they either die in an attack and go to paradise or get captured and go to, forgive my using a Limbaughism, Club Gitmo for a temporary stay there isn't much deterrent there. If we can convince them that the end result will be much less agreeable. . .

Right now we're trying so hard to not offend that we're not only ineffective but we don't command much respect from the general population. We need to find a balance between "friend of the oppressed" and "scourge of suffering to the oppressor".

Palomar · 2005-07-13 10:52:46

We need two prongs in how we deal with this. For average non-extremist Muslims we should be as tolerant and accomodating in their countries as is practical. But for the terrorists, a little bowel wrenching fear is in order.
Right now we're trying so hard to not offend that we're not only ineffective but we don't command much respect from the general population. We need to find a balance between "friend of the oppressed" and "scourge of suffering to the oppressor".

*I agree with this, too.

It boils down to seeking to protect a terrorist OR seeking to protect a terrorists' intended targets.

I'd much rather protect the latter (vast understatement).

Pig blood or fat as a shield; sure, why not, especially if such a shield saves innocent lives and prevents terrorists from attacking.

--Cindy

P.S.: Think of it as garlic warding off the vampire.

clark · 2005-07-13 11:02:44

I highly doubt that pig-blood bullets will put the fear of god in people willing to die for their beliefs. It would be an ineffective deterrent and demonstrate we are taking extra steps beyond what is necessary to cause those with particular beliefs to suffer.

The only benefit I can see is that it might make a few red-necks happy. I'm not too concerned with their state of emotional well being to think that this is a good idea.

The terrorists would just use this as yet another example of how the west is waging war against Islam.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-13 11:11:12

Missing the point. Pig blood bullets aren't a practical approach, at least not from a policy standpoint, but we do need to be harder in how we deal with terrorists.

Again, we're trying so hard to make sure we don't offend anyone that we end up offending them by pussy-footing around everything.

Recall Osama bin Laden's comment about people always choosing the strong horse. Being nice all the time won't engender respect, and a lack of respect breeds contempt.

clark · 2005-07-13 11:22:52

We need to be harder?

We are invading other nations. We are bombing civilian population centers. We are detaining scores of people during routine sweeps. We are torturing prisoners. We have 150,000+ US troops in several countries, conducting raids, killing insurgents/terroists, and creating new governments based partly on our own prefrence.

How exactly are we not being "hard"?

By not using pigs-blood bullets, we are weak? You've got to be kidding me.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-13 11:41:37

We are invading other nations. We are bombing civilian population centers. We are detaining scores of people during routine sweeps. We are torturing prisoners. We have 150,000+ US troops in several countries, conducting raids, killing insurgents/terroists, and creating new governments based partly on our own prefrence.
How exactly are we not being "hard"?

Either I've given you too much credit over the years or you're deliberately missing the point.

We invade other nations and immediately after seizing control fall all over ourselves to accomodate them. We immediately try to get them to start thinking about elections, we preach democracy to subjects of despots and take as light a hand as possible in all matters. We conquer a country full of people used to the rule of force and being dictated to by those with power and we start acting like self-conscious wussies. That is a huge problem that doesn't get enough attention.

We raid the homes of average citizens in some cities while negotiating ceasefires with terrorists in others. Again not only irritating the populace but giving an impression of weakness. That latter hurts us more than the former.

We are not torturing prisoners. We do not deliberately target civilians. Nor should we start.

Those who wail over every setback have half the problem right, we need to stop doing things that piss off the average Afghan and Iraqi. But they utterly fail to grasp the simple fact that we must also deal with the terrorists harshly, swiftly and with overwhelming force. Fallujah for example, we should have rolled in there and seized it, executing terrorists along the way. But instead we negotiate, then start to go in but back off, then talk some more, then finally go in but try to do it "nice" so we don't cause too much damage. Bad call.

Felt glove and steel gauntlet. Each has its place.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1121277433

Palomar · 2005-07-13 11:54:41

Felt glove and steel gauntlet. Each has its place.

*Must say it again: I agree. You have such a keenly bright and objective mind Cobra. :up:

Going back to the pig blood/fat as a shield again (as on Israeli buses), etc. If it's -not- "okay" to use such a proactive, indirect and deflective method of defense...why not? How vulnerable are intended victims supposed to allow themselves to be? To be deliberately deprived of an indirect shield of protection only serves the terrorist/brute. I'd carry a small thermos of pig fat on me at all times.

Can't go for bullets dipped in pig blood/fat, though. Might hit a civilian/innocent bystander (besides the fact that it'd probably gunk up the inner workings of the gun/rifle/whatever for starters...).

Empower the victim -or- empower the terrorist/perpetrator.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-07-13 12:14:34

Either I've given you too much credit over the years or you're deliberately missing the point.

You have no idea.

But to assuage your fears, I more than understand the point you are trying to make. Of course the introduction to your point needs work. To introduce your theory with the asinine idea of using pig’s blood as a deterrent to Islamic terrorism, and as a plausible demonstration of our own will to fight and rule, is simply pitiful. It inevitably undermines your stance and your point of view. Why paint yourself into a corner defending that simpleton outlook?

We invade other nations and immediately after seizing control fall all over ourselves to accomodate them. We immediately try to get them to start thinking about elections, we preach democracy to subjects of despots and take as light a hand as possible in all matters. We conquer a country full of people used to the rule of force and being dictated to by those with power and we start acting like self-conscious wussies. That is a huge problem that doesn't get enough attention.

Just for clarification here, who is this “we” you refer to? The US military in these countries? The US government that sent them there? A particular party that did not vote to support them once they were there? The US public that still supports the military, but questions the civilian leadership that directs it? Who is being the ‘wussie’?

I also find it difficult to make this leap in logic that you seem to have made. It seems you think that since ‘these people’ are used to being ruled forcefully, we need to mimic such roles. This of course undermines the very reason we went there in the first place, remember? We went in precisely because ‘these people'; were being ruled forcefully. Are you telling me that we invaded another country to replace a power structure we found odious with our own power structure just as odious?

We raid the homes of average citizens in some cities while negotiating ceasefires with terrorists in others. Again not only irritating the populace but give an impression of weakness. That latter hurts us more than the former.

What would you have the US military do? These actions you cite are the direct result of invading Iraq without greater international support. We have to bargain with some because we lack the manpower to police all areas. We are foreign, so we are clumsy in the execution of our sweeps. This is not the fault of weakness; this is the result of poor planning and execution of an idyllic war plan that has never fully adjusted to the reality on the ground.

We are not torturing prisoners. We do not deliberately target civilians. Nor should we start.

Okay, we are not torturing prisoners. We are torturing detainees and suspected insurgents. The same ones who are picked up in the raids on average citizens. The reports detailing all of this are freely available, courtesy of the US government. I’m not going to quibble with you over it.

And if we should not be deliberately targeting civilians, which I assume we are not, then what should we be doing? It seems that what we are doing now gives you the impression that we are being weak, while not doing it, as in targeting civilians, is unacceptable.

But they utter fail to grasp the simple fact that we must also deal with the terrorists harshly, swiftly and with overwhelming force.

And how are we not dealing with them harshly or swiftly? People complain, deal with it. They are a minority, just like rabid fundamentalist republicans are a minority. Both are rather loud, and both have absolutely nothing worth listening to. I’m not giving you much credit on this because you are basically complaining about a powerless minority viewpoint.

From where I sit, we are dealing with terrorists more in line with your views than what the liberal cry babies you generally complain about would have.

BWhite · 2005-07-13 12:39:11

Be tough, but against who?

If the mother of one of the British bombers had no idea her son was about to commit suicide (she called in a missing person report) how can we believe the military and the police will possibly know who to be tough against?

Be tough, randomly, may allow chest thumping US-ians to feel proud but it certainly doesn't help our cause.

= = =

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArt … AMO.xml]In other news, this stuff just makes our nation look ridiculous. Frat house antics are simply worthless as a practical tool for winning the war on terror.

Palomar · 2005-07-13 12:45:10

Be tough, randomly, may allow chest thumping US-ians to feel proud but it certainly doesn't help our cause.

*Who said anything about pride in this?

Felt glove and steel gauntlet. Each has its place.

Seems a balanced view to me.

"Lay back and enjoy it" randomly isn't helpful.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-13 12:59:57

But to assuage your fears, I more than understand the point you are trying to make. Of course the introduction to your point needs work. To introduce your theory with the asinine idea of using pig’s blood as a deterrent to Islamic terrorism, and as a plausible demonstration of our own will to fight and rule, is simply pitiful. It inevitably undermines your stance and your point of view.

Dude, I specifically said on at least two occasions that the pig-bullet idea wasn't practical. I never defended it. I'm not talking about bloody bullets, merely using the already raised example as a starting point to open a discussion of a wider issue.

Just for clarification here, who is this “we” you refer to?

That's the question isn't it. From an American perspective it depends on who you ask and who they want to blame for failures, real or imagined.

But from the perspective of both terrorists and the average MidEast civvie, the "we" is the US in its entirety. Drawing dinstinctions doesn't matter from that angle. "We", meaning you, me, Cindy, Bill, George Bush, Harry Reid, and the entire cast of the Muppets invaded.

It seems you think that since ‘these people’ are used to being ruled forcefully, we need to mimic such roles. This of course undermines the very reason we went there in the first place, remember? We went in precisely because ‘these people; were being ruled forcefully.

Now you're being just as unrealistic as the neo-con post-war planners. There is a timeframe for these things to occur. For all the citing of Germany and Japan done from the Right they miss a crucial point. In both cases, while we did eventually build a free democratic nation, when we first went in we told people what to do with guns in our hands. Only after order was imposed did we start with all the pie-in-the-sky democracy stuff.

In Iraq we may get lucky and it'll work. But we still would have been better served not skipping that impose order phase.

What would you have the US military do? These actions you cite are the direct result of invading Iraq without greater international support.

Uhm, no. They're a combination of bad US planning (firing the entire Iraqi army) and a lingering wussiness (wavering at Fallujah). If we had a million foreign troops and led them as we are now it wouldn't matter, if we had no foreign troops and struck in force at the first sign of local rallying against us we'd be doing better.

From where I sit, we are dealing with terrorists more in line with your views than what the liberal cry babies you generally complain about would have.

Yes, after years of being even wussier. But merely invading a couple countries and blowing some stuff up does not a hardass make. We still tread too clumsily when we should tiptoe through but shuffle about too slowly and carefully when we should be stomping things.

We're in a middle ground now, that much vaunted and grossly over-rated "moderate approach". We finally got up the nerve to start dealing with terrorism but we still flinch whenever it gets tough. Point being, if we're going to go in we really need to do it right.

Reference the "weak Roman" position Bill used to use as an example of current policy. It's not a good approach.

BWhite · 2005-07-13 13:00:27

Be tough, randomly, may allow chest thumping US-ians to feel proud but it certainly doesn't help our cause.
*Who said anything about pride in this?
Felt glove and steel gauntlet. Each has its place.
Seems a balanced view to me.
"Lay back and enjoy it" randomly isn't helpful.
--Cindy

This is a false presentation of an either / or choice.

What we need is good police psychological work, also called profiling, and aggressive programs to infiltrate potential cults.

Remember that mixed up white kid from Marin County who joined al Qaeda? Being tough is worthless in cases like that. SO is being nice.

We need more choices than Cobra offers.

Edited By BWhite on 1121281278

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2005-07-12 09:26:25

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#177 2005-07-12 09:43:13

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#178 2005-07-12 10:52:58

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#179 2005-07-12 11:06:57

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#180 2005-07-12 11:09:05

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#181 2005-07-12 19:53:52

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#182 2005-07-12 20:36:13

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#183 2005-07-13 09:38:07

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#184 2005-07-13 09:59:33

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#185 2005-07-13 10:11:03

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#186 2005-07-13 10:23:12

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#187 2005-07-13 10:23:54

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#188 2005-07-13 10:26:15

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#189 2005-07-13 10:34:35

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#190 2005-07-13 10:52:46

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#191 2005-07-13 11:02:44

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#192 2005-07-13 11:11:12

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#193 2005-07-13 11:22:52

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#194 2005-07-13 11:41:37

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#195 2005-07-13 11:54:41

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#196 2005-07-13 12:14:34

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#197 2005-07-13 12:39:11

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#198 2005-07-13 12:45:10

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#199 2005-07-13 12:59:57

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#200 2005-07-13 13:00:27

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Board footer