posted on March 14, 2003 06:55:03 AM new
“It's a security thing. It's a survival thing. It's something we either do now or pay the ultimate price down the line.”
What is that price colin?
America losing the dominant position to another country.?
So then what colin?
Death to all Americans??
Why is that necessarily so? Or are you just taking that leap in faith.?
If the demise of America is your fear, then you show little faith in the abilities of your nation & it’s people.
And you call yourself a patriot.
posted on March 14, 2003 08:11:04 AM new
Most posters pick at the current world situation in minutia. I got this anonymous essay in an email that relates the current world situation in a broad canvas.
WARNING, it is very long but it offers a broad "why we fight overview"
A CASE FOR WAR will not attempt to explain the reasons for attacking Iraq
because Iraq is part of a bigger picture, and the attack there will be one
battle in a much longer war. Trying to understand one particular battle
without the context of the larger war is an exercise in futility. (By
analogy: what excuse is there in 1942 for the US to attack Vichy France in
Morocco? Vichy France wasn't our enemy; Germany and Italy were. Taken out of
the context of the larger war, the Torch landings in Africa make little
sense. It's only when you look at the bigger picture of the whole war that
you can understand them.)
We must attack Iraq. We must totally conquer the nation. Saddam must be
removed from power, and killed if possible, and the Baath party must be
shattered.
But Saddam isn't our enemy. bin Laden (may he burn in hell) is not our
enemy. Iraq isn't our enemy. al Qaeda isn't our enemy. The Taliban weren't
our enemies. They are merely symptoms of decay.
In most wars, there's a government or core organization which you can
identify as the enemy. It isn't always a single person; in World War II it
was Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, but it wasn't Tojo in Japan. Tojo was
deposed in 1944, but the war went on. It also wasn't Hirohito; he mostly
kept his hands off of policy. Still, it was the Japanese government, and
that could still be understood. But in this war there is no single
government or small group of them, no man, no organization. Our enemy is a
culture which is deeply diseased.
It's really difficult to exactly delineate who our enemies are, but they
number in millions. They're Arab and Muslim, but not every Arab is among
them, and most Muslims are not. But even to discuss it in these terms is to
cross the boundaries of political correctness. Not that I care, but it isn't
politically possible for our leaders to say things like these, which makes
the political wrangling all the more difficult. I think that they know what
I'm about to say, and I at least am free to say what I believe whether
others find it offensive or racist.
Islam is larger than greater Arabia, and the majority of Muslims are not
Arab. But in the beginning, Islam was both a religion and a political
movement. The Qur'an is a source of moral teachings for everyday life,
telling people how to live and how to act towards one another. But it's also
a manual for conquest, describing how to face enemies, how to fight, how to
treat those who have been conquered, how to treat prisoners, how to treat
enemy soldiers.
It lays a dual obligation on Muslims: to live a good life and to spread
Islam to the entire world, by any means necessary. All successful widespread
religions are evangelistic to a greater or lesser extent (with Judaism being
the notable exception), but I know of no other major religion whose holy
teachings include instructions for how to go to war to spread the faith.
Until Mohammed, the Arab tribes were divided and spent most of their time
fighting one another. The great achievement of Mohammed was to unite the
Arabs and face them outwards, strengthened and given will by his new
religion. And for two hundred years, nothing could stand in their way; they
created one of the great empires in the history of the world which was
bounded on the south by the Sahara, on the west by the Atlantic ocean, on
the north by Christendom, and on the east by the Hindu nations. Extending
from Spain to Iran, from Turkey to Egypt it was much larger and more
powerful than was the Roman Empire before it, and it lasted longer. Within
its borders art and science and poetry and architecture flourished.
But like all empires, it eventually fell. Unlike other empires, this was
against the word of God, for the Qur'an says that Islam will eventually
dominate the entire world. In reality, it's been in retreat for more than
three hundred years, and its decline became far more precipitous with the
collapse of the Ottomans. Once-great Arab nations became little more than
colonies for heathen Europeans, or economic dependents of America.
Our enemy is those who inherit the culture and heritage of that empire. Not
everyone within the empire's physical realm now partakes of that culture,
but many do.
I am having a difficult time coming up with a pithy term for our enemy. It's
hard. It isn't really greater Arabia. It certainly isn't Islam. Islamic
fundamentalism is a symptom of it, not the core. Arab nationalism and
imperialism is also a symptom of it, not the core. Each of those can and
does exist without the other, but they're both expressions of the real enemy
we face, something deeper than that.
To refer to it as Arab nostalgia is wrong, for many of those within the body
of our enemy inherit the beliefs and dogma which make them our enemies
without knowing where they came from. They aren't necessarily
traditionalists, for the same reason, though that's perhaps closer. I'm
afraid I'm going to have to use the partly-fallacious term "Arab culture",
accepting that not all Arab culture is our enemy and not all Arabs are among
our enemies.
Our enemy holds to a traditional belief, a traditional culture. Islam is a
core piece of that, but it isn't the whole thing, and not everyone who
believes in Islam is part of the enemy. Our enemy is the majority of the
people who live in what we think of as the large Arab nations, plus certain
other groups. Our enemy is concentrated in Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi
Arabia, and Syria, plus the Palestinians are part of it. There are lesser
concentrations of our enemy in Morocco, Algeria, Yemen, Oman and (non-Arab)
Pakistan. And Iran is, as usual, a complicated aspect of it. While not being
Arab, it is closer culturally to the Arabs, and to a great extent our enemy
also holds sway there. The traditionalists and theocrats in Iran are part of
our enemy, even though not being Arab, because Persian Iran was a key part
of the original Arab/Islamic empire, and still retains much of that culture.
The problem with our enemy's culture is that in the 20th century it was
revealed as being an abject failure. By any rational calculation, it could
not compete, and not simply because the deck was stacked against it. The
problem was more fundamental; the culture itself contained the elements of
its own failure.
The only Arab nations which have prospered have done so entirely because of
the accident of mineral wealth. Using money from export of oil, they
imported a high tech infrastructure. They drive western cars. They use
western cell phones. They built western high-rise steel frame buildings.
They created superhighways and in every way implemented the trappings of
western prosperity.
Or rather, they paid westerners to create all those things for them. They
didn't build or create any of it themselves. It's all parasitic. And they
also buy the technical skill to keep it running. The technological
infrastructure of Saudi Arabia (to take an example) is run by a small army
of western engineers and technicians and managers who are paid well, and who
live in isolation, and who keep it all working. If they all leave, the
infrastructure will collapse. Saudi Arabia does not have the technical skill
to run it, or the ability to produce the replacement parts which would be
needed. It's all a sham, and they know it. Everything they have which looks
like modern culture was purchased. They themselves do not have the ability
to produce, or even to operate, any of it.
The diseased culture of our enemy suffers from all seven of the deep flaws
Ralph Peters identifies as condemning nations to failure in the modern
world. Peters makes a convincing case that there is a correlation
approaching unity between the extent to which a nation or culture suffers
from these flaws and its inability to succeed in the 21st century. He lists
them as follows: Restrictions on the free flow of information. The
subjugation of women. Inability to accept responsibility for individual or
collective failure. The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social
organization. Domination by a restrictive religion. A low valuation of
education. Low prestige assigned to work.
And carrying all seven of these, our enemy is trying to compete in the 21st
century foot race with both feet cast into buckets of concrete. They are
profoundly handicapped by the very values that they hold most dear and that
they believe make them what they are.
The nations and the peoples within the zone of our enemy's culture are
complete failures. Their economies are disasters. They make no contribution
to the advance of science or engineering. They make no contribution to art
or culture. They have no important diplomatic power. They are not respected.
Most of their people are impoverished and miserable and filled with
resentment, and those who are not impoverished are living a lie. They hate
us. They hate us because our culture is everything theirs is not. Our
culture is vibrant and fecund; our economies are successful. Our
achievements are magnificent. Our engineering and science are advancing at
breathtaking speed. Our people are fat and happy (relatively speaking). We
are influential, we are powerful, we are wealthy. "We" are the western
democracies, but in particular "we" are the United States, which is the most
successful of the western democracies by a long margin. America is the most
successful nation in the history of the world, economically and
technologically and militarily and even culturally.
Our culture as exported is condemned as being lowbrow in many places, but
it's hard to deny how pervasive and influential it is. Baywatch was total
dreck, but it was also the most successful syndicated television program
around the world in history, racking up truly massive audiences each week.
Our culture is seductive on every level; those elsewhere who are exposed to
it find it attractive. It isn't always "high culture"; but some of it is,
and with the world revolution in telecommunications it's impossible for
anyone in the world to avoid seeing it and being exposed to it.
Nor can anyone ignore our technology, which is definitely not lowbrow, nor
our scientific achievements. We're everything that they think they should
be, everything they once were, and by our power and success we throw their
modern failure into stark contrast, especially because we've gotten to where
we are by doing everything their religion says is wrong. We've deeply
sinned, and yet we've won. They are forced to compare their own
accomplishments to ours because we are the standard of success, and in every
important way they come up badly short. In most of the contests it's not
just that our score is higher, it's that their score is zero. They have
nothing whatever they can point to that can save face and preserve their
egos. In every practical objective way we are better than they are, and they
know it.
And since this is a "face" culture, one driven by pride and shame, that is
intolerable. Nor is it something we can easily redress. The oft-proposed
idea of increasing aid and attempting to eliminate poverty may well help in
South America and sub-Saharan Africa, but it will not defuse the hatred of
our Arab/Islamic enemies, for it is our success that they hate, not the
fruits of that success.
It isn't that they also want to be rich. Indeed, the majority of the most
militant members of al Qaeda came from Saudi Arabia, out of comfortable
existence. What they want is to stay with their traditional culture and for
it to be successful, and that isn't possible. We can make them rich through
aid, but we can't make them successful because their failure is not caused
by us, but by the deep flaws in their culture. Their culture cannot succeed.
It is too deeply and fundamentally crippled.
Everything they think they know says that they should be successful. They
once were successful, creating and ruling a great empire, with a rich
culture. God says they will be successful; it's right there in the Qur'an.
God lays on them the duty to dominate the world, but they can't even
dominate their own lands any longer. They face a profound crisis of faith,
and it can only resolve one of three ways.
First, the status quo can continue. They can continue to fail, sit in their
nations, and accept their plight. By clinging to their culture and their
religion they may be ideologically pure, but they will have to continue to
live with the shame of being totally unable to compete. Solution one: they
can stagnate.
The second thing they can do is to accept that their culture and their
religion are actually the problem. They can recognize that they will have to
liberalize their culture in order to begin to achieve. They can embrace the
modern world, and embrace western ways at least in part. They can break the
hold of Islamic teachings; discard Sharia; liberate their women; start to
teach science and engineering in their schools instead of the study of the
Qur'an; and secularize their societies. Solution two: they can reform. Some
Arab nations have begun to do this, and to the extent that they have they
have also started to succeed. But this is unacceptable to the majority; it
is literally sinful. It is heresy. What good does it do to succeed in the
world if, by so doing, you condemn your soul to hell?
Which leaves only one other way: become relatively competitive by destroying
all other cultures which are more capable. You level the playing field by
tearing down all the mountains rather than filling in the valleys; you make
yourself the tallest by shooting everyone taller than you are. Solution
three: they can lash out, fight back.
It's vitally important to understand that this is the reason they're
fighting back. It's not to gain revenge for some specific action in the past
on our part. It isn't an attempt to influence our foreign policy. Their goal
is our destruction, because they can't keep hold on what they have and still
think of themselves as being successful as long as we exist and continue to
outperform them. al Qaeda grew out of this deepening resentment and
frustration within the failed Arab culture. It is the first manifestation of
solution three, but as long as the deep disease continues in the culture of
our enemy, it won't be the last. Its initial demands to the US were a bit
surprising, and not very well known. (And obscured by the fact that as their
struggle continued recently, they kept changing their stated demands in
hopes of attracting allies from elsewhere in the Arab sphere.) The original
demand was for a complete cessation of contact between America and Arabia.
Not just a pullout of our soldiers from holy Arab soil, but total isolation
so that the people of greater Arabia would no longer be exposed in any way
to us or our culture or our values. No television, no radio, no music, no
magazines and books, no movies. No internet. And that isn't possible; you
can't go backward that way. But it's interesting that this shows their real
concern. If they're no longer exposed to us, they are no longer shamed by
comparing their failure to our success, and no longer seduced by it and
tempted to discard their own culture and adopt ours.
Solution three manifests, and will continue to manifest, in many ways.
Another way it manifests is in a new Arab imperialism, an ambition in some
quarters to recreate the Arab empire and by so doing to regain political
greatness. Arab nationalism doesn't directly spring from Islam, but it does
spring from this deep frustration and resentment caused by the abject
failure of the enemy culture, and it's most prominent practitioner is Saddam
Hussein.
Both al Qaeda's terrorist attacks, and Saddam's attempts to incorporate
other Arab nations into Iraq, spring from the same deep cause. But when I
say that al Qaeda and Saddam are not the real enemy, it's because they both
arise due to a deeper cause which is the true enemy. If we were to stamp out
al Qaeda as a viable organization and reduce it to an occasional annoyance,
and remove Saddam's WMDs no matter how, by conquest or inspections, someone
else somewhere else would spring up and we would again be in peril. We
cannot end this war by only treating the symptoms of al Qaeda and Saddam,
though they must be dealt with as part of that process. This war is actually
a war between the modern age and traditional Arab culture, and as long as
they stagnated and felt resentment quietly, it wasn't our war.
It became our war when al Qaeda started bringing it to our nation. With a
series of successively more deadly attacks culminating in the attacks in NYC
and Washington last year, it became clear that we in the United States could
no longer ignore it, and had to start working actively to remove the danger
to us. We didn't pick this war, it picked us, but we can't turn away from
it. If we ignore it, it will keep happening.
But the danger isn't al Qaeda as such, though that's the short term
manifestation of the danger. This war will continue until the traditional
crippled Arab culture is shattered. It won't end until they embrace reform
or have it forced on them. Until a year ago, we were willing to be patient
and let them embrace it slowly. Now we have no choice: we have to force them
to reform because we cannot be safe until they do.
And by reform I mean culturally and not politically. The reform isn't just
abjuration of weapons of mass destruction. It isn't just promising not to
attack any longer. What they're going to have to do is to fix all seven of
Ralph Peters' problems, and once they've done so, their nations won't be
recognizable.
First, they will seem much more western. Second, they'll start to succeed,
for as Peters notes, nations which fix these problems do become competitive.
What he's describing isn't symptoms, its deep causes. We're facing a 14th
century culture engaged in a 14th century war against us. The problem is
that they are armed with 20th century weapons, which may eventually include
nuclear weapons. And they embrace a culture which honors dying in a good
cause, which means that deterrence can't be relied on if they get nuclear
weapons. Why is it that the US is concerned about Iraq getting nukes when we
don't seem to be as concerned about Pakistan or India or Israel? Why are we
willing to invade Iraq to prevent it from getting nukes, but not Pakistan to
seize the ones it developed? It's because those nations don't embrace a
warrior culture where suicide in a good cause, even mass death in a good
cause, is considered acceptable. (Those kinds of things are present in
Pakistan but don't rule there as yet.)
It's certainly not the case that the majority of those in the culture which
is our enemy would gladly die. But many of those who make the decisions
would be willing to sacrifice millions of their own in exchange for millions
of ours, especially the religious zealots. If such people get their hands on
nuclear weapons, then our threat of retaliation won't prevent them from
using them against us, or threatening to do so. Which is why we can't let it
happen. The chance of Israeli or Pakistani or Indian nukes being used
against us is acceptably small. If Arabs get them, then eventually one will
be used against us. It's impossible to predict who will do it, or when, or
where, or what the proximate reason will be, but it's inevitable that it
will happen. The only way to prevent it is to keep Arabs from getting nukes,
and that is why Iraq is now critically important and why time is running
out.
It's wrong to say that this would be "irrational" on their part. It is a
reasoned decision based on an entirely different set of axioms, leading to a
result totally unacceptable to us. But they're not insane or irrational.
Even though they're totally rational, deterrence ultimately can't stop them
from using nuclear weapons against us. All major wars started by someone
else that you eventually come to win start with a phase where you try to
consolidate the situation, to stop the enemy's advance. Then you go on to
the offensive, take the war to him, and finish it.
Afghanistan and Iraq are the two parts of the consolidation phase of this
war. al Qaeda had to be crippled and Saddam has to be destroyed in order to
gain us time and adequate safety to go onto the offensive, and to begin the
process which will truly end this war: to destroy Wahhabism, to shatter
Islamic fundamentalism, to completely break the will of the Arabs and to
totally shame them. Because they are a shame/pride culture, that latter may
seem paradoxical. But the reality is that we cannot win this by making them
proud, for they are not a stupid people and they actually have nothing to be
proud of. We can't make them proud because we can't give them anything to be
proud of; they need accomplishments of their own for pride, and their
culture prevents that. The only hope here is to make them so ashamed that
they finally face and accept the thing they are trying to hide from in
choosing to fight back: their culture is a failure, and the only way they
can succeed is to discard it and change.
It may sound strange to say, but what we have to do is to take the 14th
century culture of our enemies and bring it into the 17th century. Once
we've done that, then we can work on bringing them into the 21st century,
but that will be much easier.
But they've got to accept their own failure, personally and nationally and
culturally. That is the essential first step. They've got to accept that the
cause of their failure is their own culture, and that we're not. And they've
got to accept that the only way to succeed is to change. That will be a
difficult fight, and it's going to take decades. Along the way it's going to
be necessary to remove many governments which come to power and yet again
try to embrace the past and become militant, nationalistic, fundamentalist,
or again attempt to try to develop nuclear weapons.
Saddam has to go not merely because of his programs for development of WMDs.
He also has to go because he manifests Arab nationalism and imperialism.
Even if he actually consents to disarm, he and the Baathist party must be
destroyed. The reason that Iraq's nuclear weapon program is critical is that
it means we have to do so immediately; it makes it urgent. But removing
their program to develop nuclear weapons doesn't remove the deeper reason to
destroy Saddam and the Baathists, for they are part of the deeper pathology
which must be excised.
After the consolidation phase of this war is complete, with the destruction
of the Taliban and occupation and reform of Iraq, then we will go on to the
offensive and begin to strike at the deeper core of the problem. Part of
that will be to force reform on Saudi Arabia, through a combination of
diplomacy, persuasion, subversion, propaganda and possibly even military
force.
What this shows is just how deeply I disagree with many who oppose this war.
I am forthrightly proposing what some might call cultural genocide. The
existing Arab culture which is the source of this war is a total loss. It
must be shattered, annihilated, leaving behind no more traces in the Arab
lands than the Samurai left in Japan or the mounted knights left in Europe.
I am forthrightly stating that it will be necessary to destabilize the
entire middle east, which puts me exactly counter to European foreign
policy. No band-aid will do. It isn't possible to patch things up with
diplomacy because the rot runs too deep. Diplomacy now would be treating the
symptoms and not the true disease. I am forthrightly stating that no amount
of aid to the poor will stop the aggression against us, which will anger
liberals everywhere. It isn't our wealth they hate, it's our
accomplishments. The only way we can appease them is to ourselves become
failures, and that is a price I'm not willing to pay.
And I claim that the US bears essentially no blame for the fundamental
source of their anger towards us. They don't hate us because of our foreign
policy. They don't ultimately hate us because of past mistakes. They don't
hate what we do or what we have done. They hate what we are, and what we
show them that they are not. They hate our accomplishments and our
capabilities because we force them to see their own lack of accomplishments
and their incompetence and impotence. And I'm saying that the US must do
this, with help or without, because the US will be the continuing target of
Arab solution number 3 as long as this resentment continues to boil, which
it will do as long as Arab culture is not shattered and reformed. We will
accept help from others if it's truly helpful, but we'll do it alone if we
have to. (Or we will try and fail.)
We will be the primary target because we're the most successful. It's as
simple as that. And that means that this ultimately will be a unilateral war
by us; we're the ones with the most on the line. If the Arabs eventually do
get nukes, the first one they use will either be against Israel or against
us. It won't be against Europe, and if more conventional terrorist attacks
continue, the most damaging ones will be directed against us. We will pay
most of the price for this war, in staggering amounts of money, in losses on
the field of battle, and in death and destruction at home, and therefore any
talk of unified multilateral international action by a coalition of equals
is nonsense. The other nations won't risk as much and won't pay as much and
won't contribute as much and therefore deserve less say in what will happen.
In the mean time, now that al Qaeda has broken the ice, there will be
further terrorist attacks against us as long as this war continues. They may
be made by al Qaeda itself, or they may be made by other groups who will
spring up. We can't totally prevent that until we've removed the true cause
of those attacks: Arab cultural failure. Nothing short of that will stop the
attacks. They're part of the setbacks which always accompany any major war.
We'll do our best to foil such attacks, but inevitably some will succeed.
And those who don't understand the true issues will inevitably point to such
attacks as proof that our campaign is a failure, that by our aggressiveness
we raised further terrorist groups against us, that we should abandon the
war and try appeasement, concession, aid, humanistic solutions.
And they'll be wrong, because they don't understand the real reason why
we're being attacked and therefore why such approaches won't truly remove
the source of the grievance. They won't stop hating us until they become
successful and begin to achieve on their own. We can't make them successful
with material gifts, including aid to their poor. We can only make them
successful with cultural changes, and they will resist that. Now that we've
been attacked, we are ourselves compelled to force them to accept those
cultural changes, because that is the only way short of actual genocide to
remove the danger to ourselves. This war will end when they change, but not
before.
posted on March 14, 2003 08:41:07 AM new
"But Saddam isn't our enemy. bin Laden (may he burn in hell) is not our
enemy. Iraq isn't our enemy. al Qaeda isn't our enemy. The Taliban weren't
our enemies. They are merely symptoms of decay."
The decay is Israel.
posted on March 14, 2003 06:49:22 PM new
Yes Dony it does seem that many in USA are appealing to those with the “brutal nature and stupidity” of some American and Australian supremacists and other ‘clean descent living Christian white folk’ by lending support to the “Genocide” of what they see as a “parasitic and diseased culture.”
It sounds like the persecution of a religion being based on the belief that it is a “parasitic and diseased culture” came straight out of ‘Mien Kampf’.
Ironic.
They would have us believe that the Muslims are not God’s people.
Well then which others are not God’s people.
How do we determine who are God’s people and who are not.
Do they bear a mark.
posted on March 14, 2003 07:30:16 PM newGreat article. It's the US vs. Arab culture and the only way we can win is by committing cultural genocide.
I think he's right but I kinda doubt liberals will go along with this.
so then you figure American conservatives WILL go along with "cultural genocide"??? Let's have the president and his cadre state openly to the American voting public that we will only be successful when we have destroyed and reformed Arab/Islamic culture in it's entirety, and see how long this administration lasts.
This was an interesting and well reasoned article, to the point where the (understandably anonymous) author refers to an entire culture as "diseased". At first I thought this presentation might be able to do what most of the pro-war faction here has been unable to do; get through a proposition without resorting to name calling. No such luck.
posted on March 14, 2003 09:18:09 PM new
Desquirrel's report from the rubber room think tank of paranoid delusion? Surprising that they give inmates meth in there but I suppose anything's worth a try, eh?
Don't you get it? Why can't you take the arabs at their word and accept that there would be nothing to fear from them if this country would only leave them alone in their lands and their beliefs? They aren't out to get us; they are only interested in getting us out of their lives.
posted on March 14, 2003 09:37:29 PM new
As promised I have removed my message that was here to make the point that it's 'logic' and blame is simmillar to that used by certain 'christian' folk.
As anticipated the predictable 12pole has
copied and pasted it on March 14, 2003 09:56:52 PM without edits.
I can confirm that at that time, a quick MS Word scan shows it to have the same number of characters, words, lines and spaces. It appears to be an exact copy and paste.
[ edited by austbounty on Mar 14, 2003 10:19 PM ]
posted on March 14, 2003 09:56:52 PM new
Desquirel's 'essay' is nothing more than a plagiarism of the original link.
Get yourself an original thought.
Gee, I got this anonymous essay in an email that relates the current world situation in a broad canvas.
WARNING, it is very long but it offers a broad "why we're sick overview"
Let us see if we can “get through a proposition without resorting to name calling”
Perhaps while we are at it we should make a case for war on the sickness of paedophilia stench, which permeates Anglo-centric western culture.
To gain a true understanding of it's this spread of decay, we must first look at the humiliation and sexual objectification of women in their culture.
‘Who’s your Daddy’ is their call cry, to ‘miss teen’ and ‘ miss pre-teen’, as they show that the sexual objectification of even their own children is not sacred as is unmistakably recognised throughout the world. Sexual interaction between parent and child is revered as witnessed by the term ‘mo-fo’ being used almost as a term of endearment.
They permit paedophile organisation to exist and they are rampant.
We must not wage war against any one of the 2000 men a year who murder their wives girlfriends or x’s in USA every year today. But understand the cultural decay, which exists and is promoted by the ‘cultural’ idols to which they aspire.
Wacko Jacko, Pamela Anderson, And any number of a long list of plastic idols who teach their offspring to go under the blade in the name of sexual perfection.
The Jerry springer show displays the highest which intellect can reach.
Karl Marx in his essay of Family and the State would describe this, in his own words as “alienation” from their humanity.
The disintegration of the family unit, the use of abortion and even IVF, is a symptom of the selfish hedonistic desire to achieve ones aspirations regardless of the harm it may cause others.
The dehumanisation of humanity is the perpetual message as they are called to worship 5 times a day by the seemingly innocent call of ‘where’s the remote’.
Humanity is at war with this antithesis, and it can not rest for only one can survive.
I will be removing this message soon, Its here to make the point that it's the 'logic' and blame is simmillar to that used by certain 'christian' folk.
No you won't be removing your idotic ramblings anytime soon...
Everyone needs to see what moronic writing that is.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on March 14, 2003 10:34:17 PM new
Austbounty's original posting didn't look idiotic to me, it looked exactly right.
The reasonings of the first and second essays look ridiculous if you apply them to us, and eerily familiar if you apply them to 1930's Jews. But today, applied to Arabs/Islamics, they're just the kind of brand new ideas we need for the 21st century.
Someone said a week or so ago in another thread that it sounded like I wasn't happy being an American and I didn't reply. I'd reply now. I hate being a person.
posted on March 14, 2003 10:36:23 PM new
History will remember that in spite of the absence of an official US declaration of War. US B1 bombers were just reported to have attacked Iraq in the Far West of their 'NO FLY ZONE'
History will also remember that at that time 50% of Iraq's population were less than 15 years of age.
posted on March 14, 2003 10:57:52 PM new
donny and some others of like opinion,
I realise that it may not be of consolation to you that I charge your culture and mine of atrocities.
I apologise to you, that I have not isolated those in power who have brought us to the position we find ourselves today.
I understand and accept that there are in both cultures men and women that are ‘better men than me’.
But the fighting and hatred and genocide, which I see being promoted, is inhumane, and it saddens me to see, but I fear that they will succeed. As peace lovers, we may be doomed, because by definition the warmongers will find little resistance.
Here is an example of what we face as peace lovers, but remember, there is hope, we don’t have to be pacifists in the quest for peace.
Some advise from yisgood’s web site.
“With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try to convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001. You will be tempted to insult them, but this is not proper ettiquette. Here are the proper rules of debate:
1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence.
2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.
3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and may try to hit you, so be careful.
4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a non-violent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.
5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.
6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.
7. Repeat steps 2-5 until they come around to your point of view”
posted on March 14, 2003 11:37:46 PM new
Yeah, I'd seen that advise before.
You know, it's not really cultures that give rise to this sort of thing, it's the essential nature of Man. You can look back at the Holocaust and wonder in horror - what let this happen, what kind of national psychosis took hold, what led up to it? You could get into a discussion about WWI and the resentment over the treaty. But the real answer is much simpler. What was it about the German people that led to it? They were people, and that's all it took.
posted on March 15, 2003 04:26:57 AM new
Yes. The Essential Nature of Man. The creature of habit. Habit comes naturally to man; and, habit "makes the custom." In turn, custom becomes the great guide to human life. For Goethe, "Customs, even the most foolish and the most cruel, have always their source in the real or apparent utility of the public." Some customs, we might safely conclude, are harmful, and, thus, not to be followed; but where left with a choice, habit or custom is more true then most anything else one might choose as a guide even through the harmful. Habit may then be equated to prejudice; it is an impression or an inference which one has picked up, -- a person knows not when or how -- as likely as they are unavoidable, they are fair or they are not; they are taken from one's general observation, or past experiences, or primal guidance. There is nothing necessarily wrong with a prejudice, as Edmund Burke has written, "it is natural and right."
"No wise man can have a contempt for the prejudices of others; and he should even stand in a certain awe of his own, as if they were aged parents and monitors. They may, in the end, prove wiser than he."
"Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has been Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government in an act of national cravenness.
......Israel.....ignored Bush’s requests to restrain itself, and sold U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on F-16 technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israel’s sale of our AWACS system."
posted on March 15, 2003 09:08:11 AM new
Very interesting post krs,
I enjoyed reading it.
But as a healthy sceptic, (god i love a debate!)Im sure all would agree that we must 'question' it; just as I too expect to lead an examined life.
We have brains and are suposedly an enlightened beast.
When Edmund Burke writes, "it is natural and right." How do you think he would interpret the desire to 'bed thy neigbour's wife'.
Is it 'natural'and therefore 'right'.
posted on March 15, 2003 10:01:51 AM new
There is nothing promoting genocide in the articles. The only ones promoting genocide are the muslims- kill all jews and Americans.
There is also nothing immoral doing to the radical muslim world exactly what we did to Germany and Japan- grind them onto the dirt and submission, then re-buiuld them.
posted on March 15, 2003 10:17:18 AM new
Right. When we've established that a culture is parasitic and diseased, that they have no right of existance, that we not only can, but should, wipe them out completely, that's not genocide.
It's the same rationale that Hitler used for the Jews. These articles even say that our enemies are millions. How many millions? Geeze, 6 or 8 million is such a twentieth century idea, and these are new ideas for the twenty first century. How about every single one of them?
Throw in some #*!@ words like 'sui generis' to appeal to people who suspect they're not as smart as they should be, and they eat it up. It's so intellectual!
The saddest thing is, it's not a hard sell. People hunger for this, over and over.
posted on March 15, 2003 12:29:57 PM new
People like you donny are the ones that will usher in the downfall of Western civilization, if we allow it. The only people that have uttered and asked for genocide are the muslim leaders. But you have never raised the issue of genocide with that side of the argument. You're an America hater.
I just wish I could be there when you and yours are under radical muslim rulers.
Why don't you go live among these fine people that you wish to empower ?
posted on March 15, 2003 12:59:10 PM new
Both of those articles' focus is laying the case for genocide. I'd wonder if you can't understand what you're reading and just pretend that you do, or if you do understand it and pretend it's not what it is. I remember when, soon after 9-11, you espoused reducing all of the Middle East to glass.
"But you have never raised the issue of genocide with that side of the argument."
Terrosism has never destroyed any nation, it's not meant to, it can't. The focus of terrorism is to cause terror, not to wipe out a nation or a civilization.
To think that Muslim "leaders" can destroy the West is preposterous. To claim that they have that ability and that therefore there's a justification to wipe out their civilization is insane. They cannot destroy us, so I take their cries to for what they're worth. We can destroy them, so I take our cries to for what they're worth.
Western civilization... I think it would be a good idea.
I said before, I'm more than an American hater, I'm a people hater. This is not any different than when any other peoples have posited this same position. It's not the brutal and stupid nature of Americans that's giving rise to this, it's the brutal and stupid nature of Man.
posted on March 15, 2003 03:15:31 PM newTerrosism has never destroyed any nation, it's not meant to, it can't
So it would be OK then for the US to terrorize radical muslim nations ? That's positon is so far out in never never land it is any wonder you can't see daylight.
destroying a culture is not genocide. We destroyed Germany's nazi culture and we destroyed Japan's imperial culture, and Italy's fascist culture.
You liberals can find nothing worth fighting for. That will bring down a nation.
But in the back of my mind I hope the liberals get their way. I hope Bush is thwarted at his every move. Then it will be on the peaceniks heads when their friends the terrorists hit us again.
The next tragedy committed by Hussein, or al Qaeda, or Hamas will be on your heads.
posted on March 15, 2003 04:47:23 PM new
reamond, have you ever considered the consequences of you being wrong.
America is not Israel.
Have you considered that their interests are not necessarily aligned?
“You liberals can find nothing worth fighting for. That will bring down a nation. “
But they are ‘fighting’ reamond, not physically on AW, but with their words.
Your arguments are being challenged!
How can you argue for freedom of speach in Iraq while trying to crush debate here.
What loss to you remond if Israel does not have it’s way?
How is it that you necessarily feel that Israel’s loss is America’s.
I am Australian of Greek ‘pedigree’(for want of another word).
I am proud of both and expect that you have pride in your roots too.
As I am firstly a ‘true’ Australian, I am comfortably ignorant to what is going on in Cyprus at the moment.
I believe the culture I have mainly embraced is Australian, Australians are traditionally little interested in world politics, unlike the Greeks.
That is why I display less interest in Cyprus than Mandella of Africa.
This is my country and my priority, I don’t want Australia dragged into ‘their’ fight.
My selfish/patriotic interests are HERE.
Read this paragraph once more, and decide if the interests’/motives of USA & Israel are ‘aligned’, before you demand committing US ‘collateral. You may have conflict of interests and only one can win.
“In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts.”
posted on March 15, 2003 05:26:48 PM new
The bottom line is that if Bush is stopped from going after Iraq, the liberals, Germany, and France will own Saddam Hussein and everything he does from that day forth.
posted on March 15, 2003 05:32:54 PM new
AustB- don't even address me, you're first and foremost a jew hating conspiracy nut. Find something better to do than address me, your're not worth responding to.
In case you haven't noticed that is why no one here with any common sense responds to your posts.
Find a Nazi site to post on, or one that deals with your mental illness.
