As you very well know, it's impossible to prove anybody's grounds for opinion. To ask for proof for your alleged racial preferences is therefore meaningless.
However, if I misunderstand you in that you DON'T want to carpet bomb the hell out of the darkies, I'll gladly take it back. I don't have to, of course, because I am entitled to my opinion and I may freely express this opinion, but if you can show me somehow that your genocidal tendencies and thirst for non-caucasian blood ISN'T racially motivated, I'll gladly take it back
(oops, huh?)
Now, about that genocide you proposed, let's get back to that, shall we? Or are you still too busy dodging that one?
So, previously you have stated that you feel that that if a Islamitic country, Middle East or African, captures and tries an American pr British citizen for a crime according to their legal system, and if you happen to think that this law is stupid, that gives America the right to commit genocide, render an entire continent uninhabitable for millions of years, and cause massive environmental damage that may be the end for our ecosystem, by sending one hundred missiles armed with nukes to that country.
Care to comment on this?
How do you, for instance, see the issue of souvereignity resolved?
How do you feel about the millions you would sentence to death without trial?
How do you, in this light, reconcile the lack of legal basis for your proposed actions with your statement that "The lack of trial and prosecution [for those in Guantanamo] is troubling to me as well."?
How do you feel about the practical question of destroying natural resources the US most likely can't possibly do without? (I assume here that you don't care about other places in the world that might need these resources - correct me if I'm wrong.)
And last, but not least, how do you feel now about the obvious tactical error of trying to free a person by obliterating the region this person is in?
Remember, it's just an opinion I'm asking for, and you can say all you want, so why don't you be a man about it, and stop projecting my argumentation, and take the floor?
Race baiting 101.
Not even very good at it either.
more baiting inaccurate blather: "So, previously you have stated that you feel that that if a Islamitic country, Middle East or African, captures and tries an American pr British citizen for a crime according to their legal system, and if you happen to think that this law is stupid, that gives America the right to commit genocide"
I said if I was the king of England. Has nothing to do with America.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006
I think all our Marines are too busy securing democracy in the Middle East to have time for Sudan.
No not really. As a whole the Marine Corps is gearing up for a significant troop reduction as more towns and cities are being turned over to local Iraqi Police backed up by Iraqi Army out in the deserts.
Also keep in mind, with approx. 1.2 million service members across all branches and roughly 10% in Iraq.. we've got plenty of options.
First, I didn't write Iraq, I wrote the Middle East, so it is probably significantly more than that.
Are you in the military Joe, if so are you in Iraq? If so, are you allowed to disclose information about the status of the situation there?
I don't see how a no-fly zone is going to have any impact on people being innocently slaughtered, but I didn't expect much more of an intelligent solution when it comes to helping others.
Maybe the US will get out of the UN, if they are so useless. I suspect the UN would accomplish much more with the US. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 1, 2007, United States Africa Command achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC). AFRICOM’s IOC marks a realignment of the U.S. Defense Department’s regional command structure. For its first year, AFRICOM will operate under U.S. European Command (EUCOM) as it progressively accepts oversight of the programs and activities that the U.S. military conducts with African nations. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What do you mean it isn't set up yet?
Personally, I am tired of living in a country that feels the need to police the world. I feel like we are the dumb, big bully on the playground, who everyone is slightly afraid of because they know he can hit harder, but it really won't take too long before they all get together and out smart him.
Its quite sad what this administration has done to our reputation in the world. Oh well, maybe I can pass off for a Canadian when I move to Britain
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
No, of course not. No relation at all to the fact that you feel threatened by terrorists all over the world, between 9/11 and your knee-jerk ‘Genocide! Genocide! Nuke the terrorists!!!’ No relation whatsoever.
Next:
quote:
more baiting inaccurate blather: […]I said if I was the king of England.
I’m afraid it’s YOU who’s inaccurate here. This discussion is about something else you said, something you still obliquely refer to and support, but are afraid to openly repeat.
Next:
I prepared a list of implications springing from your call for mass murder for you to comment on, but I see you are afraid to comment because of the risk of getting banned. That’s okay though, I would be too in your situation. See? That’s what you get from yelling without prior thought.
That’s good though, everybody who reads this thread has your number; no matter how much you try pose as the victor, the floor was wiped with your hateful ignorance on this thread. Again, that’s what you get from yelling without prior thought.
You seem to have at least temporarily learned your lesson in that you now understand that you can’t openly advocate genocide without being held responsible for your words and proposed actions.
I’ll now leave it to your ass slappin’ buddies to close this thread. Have fun, guys.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nurdin T.,
Posts: 67 | Location: Manahachtanienk | Registered: 16 November 2007
Ah, I see. I'm sorry, for a moment there I mistook you for an actual person; thank you for setting the record straight.
No problem.. I generally find intellectually vacant people offend confuse criticism with white noise.
By the way, how is that discussion with slabmaster going?
Typical liberal fixation over issues that are irrelevant and meaningless.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Originally posted by Nurdin T.: I prepared a list of implications springing from your call for mass murder for you to comment on, but I see you are afraid to comment because of the risk of getting banned.
Uh....yeah.....
....that's it.
I heard a crow squauking the other day and I didn't run out and answer his noise either.
We played catch.
Log, .22 tracers and pest birds is a sight to see.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006
I wonder how many times I've heard right wingers call for some sort of "final solution" in the Arab/Persian world. They'll say things like, "lets just do an air strike against their nuclear facilities..." Of course, they never consider for a second that those "nuclear facilities" are near populated cities and millions would be affected by a strike. How many died on 911? 3000? Well, if we struck nuclear sites, hundreds of thousands could die. The right keeps talking about them coming here and killing us. Again, how many countries have we recently invaded? Since 911, how many people have our bombs and guns killed in the name of fear and freedom? When did Hitler realize that he was the problem not the final solution? When will people see that the US has turned into a rabid nation of killers and torturers that need to be "contained?"
The right wing keeps talking about "THEM COMING HERE" but since 911, it us, not them, that is doing all the attacking.
What's a few brown people, right?
Oh, that's right, thats the price of war. Interesting that it's ALWAYS some other countries innocent people that need to be murdered so we don't have to be scared of being attacked.
So let's say we do attack Iran as the peons suggest. Of course, like I told the Right wingers before the iraq war, the whole region would ignite in warfare and those 73% of the Iranian people, who once liked us, would then want to kill us. So would the Saudis, the Syrians, the Pakistanis, the Afghanis... The Iranian government would then destroy our ability to get oil out of that entire region and our entire economy would tank further than it already has.
But since we don't have any actual troops to send anywhere, our ONLY option would be to drop more bombs on peoples houses which would snowball into dropping "THE BOMB." The right would go "Hurray!, that 'ill show 'em to stand up to us."
After all, if you don't have any soldiers to actually find the enemy, your only option is to drop bombs. Of course the bombs create chaos and destroy the governments and the people starve and die from sickness and violence. Tragic, of course, but, again, not the right winger's fault, you know, it's the terrorist's fault...they made us do it.
Flip Wilson comes to mind here..."The devil made me buuuuuuy that dress."
Once the governments are taken out by our bombs EVERY country there is radicalized by insane fear, intolerance and god. Aren't final solutions fun?
The right says they are not racist, I suppose absolute malicious callousness and disregard for humanity fits better. Of course this fits just fine with the right wing because that's the sort of world you find in their beloved bible where god destroys, murders, and enslaves everyone he doesn't like...That's "god's love."
Invariably, when you ask a Right Winger about Iraq and Iran and how to to solve it, the solution invariably involves the mass murder of millions (final solution mentality) upon millions of brown people over there. I mean, really, how many people do we have to murder before we kill ALL the terrorists. It really comes down to how many people live in that region. Invariably, as Hitler found, the snake soon devours itself.
Of course the right will tell themselves repeatedly that they're there to help. "Excuse us while help you by bombing the phuck out of you." That's love. The Christian God would be proud.
I wonder why the right called for the murder of Saddam for his torture and crimes against humanity and then tortured and committed crimes against humanity?
And then, after being caught doing these things, it's just fine,,,it's our right...
I wonder why the right called for the murder of Saddam for his torture and crimes against humanity and then tortured and committed crimes against humanity?
And then, after being caught doing these things, it's just fine,,,it's our right..
WOW. George Bush put people in Stump grinders? and chem warfare on democrats
I am not sure if Saddam was waterboarding and putting underwear on the heads of naked people would we have felt compelled to kill him
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
On June 10, a spokesperson for the Buddhists privately informed the U.S. correspondents that "something important" would happen the following morning on the road outside the Cambodian embassy in Saigon. Most of the reporters disregarded the message, since the Buddhist crisis had at that point been going on for over a month, and the next day only a few journalists turned up, including David Halberstam of the New York Times and Malcolm Browne, who was the Saigon bureau chief for the Associated Press.
Thích Quảng Đức arrived as part of a procession that had begun at a nearby pagoda. Around 350 monks and nuns marched in two phalanxes, preceded by an Austin Westminster sedan, carrying banners printed in both English and Vietnamese. They denounced the Diệm government and its policy towards Buddhists, demanding that it fulfill its promises of religious equality. Another monk offered to burn himself, but Thích Quảng Đức's seniority prevailed.
The act itself occurred at the intersection of Phan Dinh Phung Boulevard and Le Van Duyet Street. Thích Quảng Đức emerged from the car along with two other monks. One placed a cushion on the road while the second opened the trunk and took out a five-gallon gasoline can. As the marchers formed a circle around him, Thích Quảng Đức calmly seated himself in the traditional Buddhist meditative lotus position on the cushion. His colleague emptied the contents of the gasoline container over Thích Quảng Đức's head. Thích Quảng Đức rotated a string of wooden prayer beads and recited the words "Nam Mô A Di Đà Phật" ("homage to Amitabha Buddha") before striking a match and dropping it on himself. Flames consumed his robes and flesh, and black oily smoke emanated from his burning body.
The last words of Thích Quảng Đức before his self-immolation were documented in a letter he had left:
quote:
Before closing my eyes and moving towards the vision of the Buddha, I respectfully plead to President Ngo Dinh Diem to take a mind of compassion towards the people of the nation and implement religious equality to maintain the strength of the homeland eternally. I call the venerables, reverends, members of the sangha and the lay Buddhists to organise in solidarity to make sacrifices to protect Buddhism.
David Halberstam wrote:
quote:
I was to see that sight again, but once was enough. Flames were coming from a human being; his body was slowly withering and shriveling up, his head blackening and charring. In the air was the smell of burning human flesh; human beings burn surprisingly quickly. Behind me I could hear the sobbing of the Vietnamese who were now gathering. I was too shocked to cry, too confused to take notes or ask questions, too bewildered to even think... As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him.
Police who tried to reach him could not break through the circle of Buddhist clergy. One of the policemen threw himself to the ground and prostrated himself in front of Thích Quảng Đức in reverence. The spectators were mostly stunned into silence, but some wailed and several began praying. Many of the monks and nuns, as well as some shocked passers-by, prostrated themselves before the burning monk. In English and Vietnamese, a monk repeatedly declared into a microphone, "A Buddhist priest burns himself to death. A Buddhist priest becomes a martyr."
After approximately ten minutes, Thích Quảng Đức's body toppled forward onto the street and the fire subsided. A group of monks covered the smoking corpse with yellow robes, picked it up and tried to fit it into a coffin, but the limbs could not be bent and one of the arms protruded from the wooden box as he was carried to the nearby Xa Loi Pagoda in central Saigon. Outside the pagoda, students unfurled bilingual banners which read: "A Buddhist priest burns himself for our five requests." By 13:30, around one thousand monks had congregated inside Xa Loi to hold a meeting while outside a large crowd of pro-Buddhist students had formed a human barrier around it. The meeting soon ended and all but a hundred monks slowly left the compound. Nearly one thousand monks accompanied by laypeople returned to the cremation site. The police lingered nearby. At around 18:00, 30 nuns and six monks were arrested for holding a prayer meeting on the street outside Xa Loi Pagoda. The police then encircled the pagoda, blocking public passage and giving observers the impression that an armed siege was imminent by donning riot gear.That evening, thousands of Saigonese claimed to have seen a vision of the Buddha's face in the sky as the sun had set. They claimed that in the vision the Buddha was weeping.
Posts: 247 | Location: Limbo | Registered: 17 November 2007
As long as people don't fully understand what happened at Phan Dinh Phung Boulevard on June 11 of 1963, they shouldn't be crying for blood too much. You simply don't know what you're saying.
Posts: 247 | Location: Limbo | Registered: 17 November 2007
"All the rules and procedures for formulating foreign- and security policy were annulled between 1969 and 1974. Nixon and Kissinger ignored the spirit and letter of the law in using foreign policy for their individual ambitions. They repressed reason to the detriment of political necessities."
Posts: 73 | Location: Portland OR | Registered: 27 March 2007
Originally posted by Sako: Are you claiming that all people on the right think this way?
Seems to frame a thought that is not there to me.
Well, I've noticed over the years that the right seems to have little regard for human beings, regardless of all the rhetoric. Profits take priority, with human beings being seen as their utility value for garnering those profits.
The U.S. signed the International Covenant on Political, Cultural and Social Rights only after deleting all clauses pertaining to human rights. Typical.
Even during the Spanish Civil War, the U.S. right sided with Hitler and Mussolini in overthrowing the Spanish Republic and installing Fascist Dictator Franco.
This was a repression of humanity, democracy and humane social values. When the choice has been made around the world, particularly in Latin America, when has the right ever been on the side of social justice and democracy? It wasn't the left that supported the para-military groups in So. America, it was the right busily supporting mass murder and political executions...including the assassination of the Bishop of El Salvador in his own church.
It wasn't the left that admired Hitler's rise to power, it was the right.
Do all people on the right support this sort of thing? Nope. And their support of right-wing thinkers makes them complicit in the horrors perpetrated.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
WOW. George Bush put people in Stump grinders? and chem warfare on democrats
I am not sure if Saddam was waterboarding and putting underwear on the heads of naked people would we have felt compelled to kill him
I'm not exactly sure what you were getting at but it's common knowledge that Abu Ghraib was the "notorious" prison that Saddam tortured his victims in? We just took over where Saddam left off. How fitting that we now know that King George authorized torture. The right has obviously forgotten how they pointed to Saddam's torture chambers when trying to take us into Iraq.
Behold how the media has forgotten Abu Ghraib and all the low-level peons that were put on trial. Yet, somehow, they protect the guy that authorized it all. Amazing! George said, "We don't torture" and isn't it amazing that he told us we don't torture while he signed the papers to torture.
Nothing that comes out of the Boy King's mouth is the truth. And the Right adores their beloved torturers and liars.
Good, because we didn't quite finish our discussion yet. As you may remember, I have some open issues for you to address in connection to your call for mass murder.
In case you forgot:
How do you see the issue of souvereignity resolved?
How do you feel about the billions you would sentence to death without trial, only to make your 'point'?
How do you, in this light, reconcile the lack of legal basis for your proposed actions with your statement that "The lack of trial and prosecution [for those in Guantanamo] is troubling to me as well."?
How do you feel about the practical question of destroying natural resources the US most likely can't possibly do without? (I assume here that you don't care about other places in the world that might need these resources - please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)
And last, but not least, how do you feel now about the obvious tactical error of trying to free a person by obliterating the region this person is in?
Additional question:
How would you defend your statement that the Sudan government is 'terrorist'?
Posts: 67 | Location: Manahachtanienk | Registered: 16 November 2007
Read-Only Topic
