derek
Grey Eminence
It's self explanatory. Western society is truly spiritually sick, the idolatry of false Gods has led us down a path where the holistic health has been traded for a hollow way of life.
War on ____
- Thread starter Silver Incubus
- Start date
It's self explanatory. Western society is truly spiritually sick, the idolatry of false Gods has led us down a path where the holistic health has been traded for a hollow way of life.
anti-terrorism = war on terrorism
anti drugs = war on drugs
anti war = pro peace
no big deal, just a bit of an intellegence insult as is all media or publicity touted phrases. So you just ignore the fuckers
the thing is you have to "march" for some drummer because they will be marching against you.
as for terrorists, there really is no answer, the people in that part of the world have extreme mental illness and always have. Then combine that with constantly being minipulated by "powerful governments and corporations... think of it as slapping a bee hive... never goes well.
anti drugs = war on drugs
anti war = pro peace
no big deal, just a bit of an intellegence insult as is all media or publicity touted phrases. So you just ignore the fuckers
the thing is you have to "march" for some drummer because they will be marching against you.
as for terrorists, there really is no answer, the people in that part of the world have extreme mental illness and always have. Then combine that with constantly being minipulated by "powerful governments and corporations... think of it as slapping a bee hive... never goes well.
WeAreTheLastMen
Metacom
+1
Thanks for that, really clears things up.
Do you want me to just come to your house and beat you?
Well, if you didnt have mental illness^.... you would have understood and quoted ALL of what was said
proper quote
hard to comprehend with dull brain, I suppose
WeAreTheLastMen
Metacom
that's not the proper quote. the proper quote was the one were you were being a racist fuck, you racist fuck.
oh, and the phrase "hard to comprehend with dull brain" is in need of some grammatical red cross.
oh, and the phrase "hard to comprehend with dull brain" is in need of some grammatical red cross.
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
Government has always needed a 'war' on something in order to legitimise encroachments upon the People's liberty.
As for people in 'that part of the world': if it was not for the propping up of dictators by the CIA, there would have been no Islamic Revolution, the House of Saud would have collapsed, and no one would be trying to overthrow Housni Mubarak as he would be long dead. If they have always been that way, name a terrorist attack against us before, I dunno, 1953 when Pahlavi Shah was put into power in Iran?
P.S. learn to spell; I took the liberty of underlining and correcting the offending words
Derek said:
Exactly; western society has, in a way, sacrificed itself unto itself through materialism, but it was by other means that it came to be. It is when the masses were lulled into a mass-media-induced state of non-thinking stupor, their thoughts and values were not their own, but supplanted and replaced by artifices that allow them to be 'marketed' to with greater ease. Few see this, I commend you for your vision has clearly not been obfuscated.
Ah, I just love the you cant spell your stupid card, Ill say no more, its all old old news to me.
Your probably too young to remember the plane hijackings, in which we were to order the release of political prisoners from other countries as if it was our responsibility... or our citizens on the planes would die. Or all the other random bombings of civilian populations outside the States over the years. They are what they are and the means by which they go about things speaks for itself.
I mentioned the meddleing in the same paragraph, so that point fell moot on mine as well, I see no reason to mention that these countries may have come to us ? or that others went to the Soviet Union?... easier to blame everything on America due to the width of our shoulders. The "holy wars" are old as hell and foolish, which brings the statement I made. They brought it to our shores, big mistake, we wanted them to find peace and get on with daily life, unfortunatly this is and has been their daily life. I would have suggested swifter harsher action and pulled out, letting the chips fall where they may, prepared to do it all again should need be. Choices everyone has to make choices
Your probably too young to remember the plane hijackings, in which we were to order the release of political prisoners from other countries as if it was our responsibility... or our citizens on the planes would die. Or all the other random bombings of civilian populations outside the States over the years. They are what they are and the means by which they go about things speaks for itself.
I mentioned the meddleing in the same paragraph, so that point fell moot on mine as well, I see no reason to mention that these countries may have come to us ? or that others went to the Soviet Union?... easier to blame everything on America due to the width of our shoulders. The "holy wars" are old as hell and foolish, which brings the statement I made. They brought it to our shores, big mistake, we wanted them to find peace and get on with daily life, unfortunatly this is and has been their daily life. I would have suggested swifter harsher action and pulled out, letting the chips fall where they may, prepared to do it all again should need be. Choices everyone has to make choices
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
It was brought to their shores firstly, when playing with geopolitical fire, only a madman would expect not to get burnt sooner or later. Lives have been lost on both sides as a result of interference in the affairs of the Islamic World; what of those who died under the repressive CIA-Shah, or Mubarak's anti-democratic but US-sponsored policies, or indirectly (through US-funded Israel) the bloodbath in Palestine? Methinks there is just and ample cause for one who wishes to mete retribution in whatever magnitude desired, and I am not the only one. Again: show me an incident of aggression against the US before 1953 on Jihadist pretext if you wish to cement the claim that the region has always been this way.
(I did read of the Barbary Pirates incident in 1783, though it is safe to say it was not driven by politics but rather by trade)
As for wanting to find peace: the people may want peace, but the US government apparently does not. Eisenhower warned of a 'military-industrial complex', and when one is good with a hammer, all things look to be nails.
(I did read of the Barbary Pirates incident in 1783, though it is safe to say it was not driven by politics but rather by trade)
As for wanting to find peace: the people may want peace, but the US government apparently does not. Eisenhower warned of a 'military-industrial complex', and when one is good with a hammer, all things look to be nails.
why would I need to show aggression against the States to show that area has always been that way ? That Jihad business reaches way back and would take years of study to sort it all out. Its had a long history of aggressiveness. That was then, this is now, but regardless, I see little for them to cry about given the current overview of the big picture.... which few can see.
WeAreTheLastMen
Metacom
Including, apparently, me, since I can see a good goddamn lot for them to cry about, and a lot of reasons for them to hate the west. They're pretty close to the reasons I hate the west, actually, except our families to die as a result. Theirs do.
That said, I don't think any grievance is worth the loss of a life.
WeAreTheLastMen
Metacom
I agree. I just read a very informative book on the subject (All the Shah's Men) and I'm appalled at the extent to which everyone in the media and politics is willing to completely dismiss this part of our history.
you not seeing what I am talking about but that is not it.
------------------------------------------------
it seems they do feel its all worth the loss of life
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
I, for one, believe that western culture has discounted the role of the blood-feud. Ours has delegated the responsibility to bring to justice one who has wronged one's self to the state, often the same entity that has wronged one to begin with (as that is what they usually do). An eye for an eye does not make the world blind, but rather serves as an example to those who would themselves blind others.
Thus, it is right that they seek their pound of flesh, for it is right that the farmer be made to reap what he has sown.
Thus, it is right that they seek their pound of flesh, for it is right that the farmer be made to reap what he has sown.
Not sure but if your talking about the middle east here, which pound of flesh is that ? That of innocent foreign civilians who have no more power over their government and corporate interests than they do... or those that gain power and repressed them ?
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
Some argue that as a result of the government being elected, that it places responsibility upon all citizens of a (pseudo-)democratic nation for the wrongs committed by its government. I would argue that the the president, being commander-in-chief of the armed forces, should be assigned responsibility, along with the chain of command down to the one ordered to commit whatever act must be avenged.
Islamic jurisprudence dictates that the elderly, the women and the children be spared the toil of war, though certain exceptions have been made:
In stark contrast, Madeline Albright said that the effects of the Iraqi embargo justified the deaths of half a million Iraqi civilians, and Iraq never attacked the US until the invasion in 1991...who is uncivilized now?
Islamic jurisprudence dictates that the elderly, the women and the children be spared the toil of war, though certain exceptions have been made:
It is reasonable to allow for collateral damage in the event one's enemy uses as its modus operandi one that specifically places it amongst civilians in the aforementioned manner.Bin Laden said:
In stark contrast, Madeline Albright said that the effects of the Iraqi embargo justified the deaths of half a million Iraqi civilians, and Iraq never attacked the US until the invasion in 1991...who is uncivilized now?
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
Whichever entity or entities put Saddam into power in 1963 (hint: not the Iraqi people) and then gave him weapons to use against the people of Iran during the 1980-88 war is just as culpable if not a thousand times more so.
Iraq had an embargo on the Kurds, also slaughtered them for a spell, the UN stepped up. Then there was much secular unrest... and here I thought that was just a problem with big bad white Christian America... the unrest here is just so brutal.. go figure... I wonder if everything would be alright if they just got along and stopped all the crazy shit.... and that is a question that will never be answered, because they never will.
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
That is partly why the Ottomans had Iraq split into three provinces: to keep them from each-others' throats. To an extent, it has been this way ever since the emergence of the Safavid dynasty and its subsequent clash with the Ottomans. Methinks it is crazy as well, though keep in mind: Islam has been political in nature since its inception, partly on account of the context in which the Qu'ran was written, and just as here where religion is used for political purposes, so too is it used for such ends there.
