Now, I do not approve of vigilantism one bit, but at least someone is standing up to the hordes of guerillas who are killing innocent civilians. Let's hope others follow suit in a much more lawful way.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
They probably want to kill him so they can be the # 1 baddies in Iraq. Not because of any moral issues.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, but it's really nice to see Iraqi's getting pissed enough to do something about the terrorists making the entire muslim world look bad.
Not that becoming terrorists themselves is a step in the direction toward peace but there is a satisfaction to it all.
If they manage to kill him, I hope the fim it for their website or turn over his body to the authorities for I.D.: unconfirmed reports of his death would not accomplish much.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
Violence begets violence.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well no.....it begets a complete lack of violence on the victim's part if it's handled right.
It's revenge that begets revenge.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And if violence invariably begat violence, well, then there wouldn't be much point to telling us that, would there? Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
If everyone could just float like leaf on river of life.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
quote: It's revenge that begets revenge.
Which kind of violence does not inspire revenge? Please, I'm curious.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Violence against and in the general vicinity of half-way enlightened people.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
As in, when the twin towers came down, nobody wanted revenge? That's news to me. Although I'm not certain you were referring to Americans.
P.S. I said "inspire," not "act upon". Obviously, not everybody who aspires to vengeance acts upon it, but then vengeance comes in all shapes and sizes. Violence is merely the most obvious.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tora Ziyal:
quote: It's revenge that begets revenge.
Which kind of violence does not inspire revenge? Please, I'm curious.
That depends on your definition of "violence" and the opinion of the reasons for ir it: Is it "violence" when police shoot an armed gunamn?
What about a fair trial that leads to execution?
Random, faceless violence is what inspires revenge.
I've always thought that killing has become so inpersonal that real peace is less likely every year: you could be killed by a bomb and who would your family blame if there was no suspect?
They'd find someone to hate (usually an e3ntire group of someones in fact), I'm sure. We need it to ease the loss and give some meaning to a senseless act.
Revenge is faster and less bloody when confined to the one person that has wronged you.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
quote: That depends on your definition of "violence" and the opinion of the reasons for ir it: Is it "violence" when police shoot an armed gunamn?
What about a fair trial that leads to execution?
I would say yes to both instances. The police has to shoot someone to get them to stop hurting other people, but that doesn't mean they're not using violence. Execution is also violence (they're violating someone's life, for crying out loud), while the trial is a form of revenge. Just because our society justifies them doesn't make them peaceful actions. I am not making a judgment about the police or the justice system (tho I do have gripes) here, but simply pointing out that what they do is different in purpose but not different in form to what we normally think of as violence and revenge, and they may incite similar consequences.
It's kind of funny that you have in your sig Newton's law "that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," because that essentially describes what I believe about violence begetting violence. Whatever you do unto another, they'll want to do unto you.
quote: Random, faceless violence is what inspires revenge.
I think that's what people want to belief when they'd like revenge. Like I said, revenge comes in all shapes and sizes. A girl might deliberately alienate her boyfriend for forgetting her birthday, or looking at another woman, or whatever. That is revenge. An enraged husband kills his wife. That is also revenge. Most of the time it's not random or faceless. However, it is easier to condemn a person or group you think of as an entity rather than a human being(s).
quote:I've always thought that killing has become so inpersonal that real peace is less likely every year: you could be killed by a bomb and who would your family blame if there was no suspect?
Exactly, people don't want to look at themselves.
quote: Revenge is faster and less bloody when confined to the one person that has wronged you.
You mean like in Shakespeare when one person kills one other person and a friend of the dead guy kills his murderer and so on until the entire town is dead by the next day? I think I learned about the futility of revenge from Shakespeare at a young age and was always wondering why people still insist on doing it.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Face it, guys: Tora is right, ya'll are wrong.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
Dude, I'm trying to avoid labeling this as right or wrong. You're not helping here. Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I totally like action movies and action computer games, so I say: Bring on the vengeance.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Wasn't that the sub-title of like Rocky XV?
Rocky XV: Bring On The Vengeance.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Violence against and in the general vicinity of half-way enlightened people.
Well that explains all of the revenge killing in the ME and Afghanistan over 911.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tora Ziyal: [QUOTE] I think I learned about the futility of revenge from Shakespeare at a young age and was always wondering why people still insist on doing it.
Because to allow someone to get away with killing someone you cared about is to allow others to be killed by them in the future.
Some people need to be put down like rabid dogs ...and in many parts of the world there is no accountability for even the most depraved crimes.
In countries where some measure of justice can be hoped for, invidents of personal revenge (violence) is far less frequent or accepted.
I see your points Tora, but we live in a very diffrent world than many: those Iraqis that want this terrorist dead are resorting to their only means currently available to them to stop him from commiting more acts of terrorism: there's just too many supporters for terrorists in the country to really expect him to ever be caught and brought to justice.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tora Ziyal:
quote: [QUOTE] Random, faceless violence is what inspires revenge.
I think that's what people want to belief when they'd like revenge. Like I said, revenge comes in all shapes and sizes. A girl might deliberately alienate her boyfriend for forgetting her birthday, or looking at another woman, or whatever. That is revenge. An enraged husband kills his wife. That is also revenge. Most of the time it's not random or faceless. However, it is easier to condemn a person or group you think of as an entity rather than a human being(s).
The diffrence is that one definition of revenge is between two agrieved people: their consequences usually dont include violence towards those not involved (innocent bystndars)....
The other is an irratinal hatred of an entire group of people will lead to violence to uninvolved parties and then some will hate that group of prople right back for their "sensless killing" .....by doing the same thing on an esclated scale. Israel, anyone?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Some people need to be put down like rabid dogs..."
Yeah, that's probably what they say, too.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Probably.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
You're used to chat-groups, right, Yase?
Grokca: "Well that explains all of the revenge killing in the ME and Afghanistan over 911."
Now, I'm not one to side with dunlendings, easterlings and roughians, but surely attacking M-E on the way home from Afghanistan must be considered arbitrary?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Flare is now a "chat group"?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
hey jsaon a/s/l?
8)
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
There can be no peace with the terrorists of Iraq and Al-Qaeda. To put it bluntly, they are uncivilized animals that have appeared in a largely-backward region of the world where the culture and philosophy are ill-prepared for the bounty of the 21st Century. The most one can hope to do is to destroy them in such a way as to prevent their ability to rally many more to their cause.
The Middle East is not the world we are used to. In some ways it is better, but in many it is worse, and this is certainly true in the case of its worst members. The brutality of the murders of innocents, the cowardice of the bombings, the savageness of religious insanity that exists when you can chant "God is great" while slowly slicing the head off of an innocent man (using, as excuse, the mistreatment of prisoners that was exceedingly mild compared to the Iraqi regime), the lack of democratic freedom and individual liberty, the blaming of all problems on the evil Americans/West/Scapegoat-of-the-hour, the dehumanization of women, Jews, et cetera . . .
Suffice it to say, the list of problems is extensive. And would it were so that we could leave them to either rot or to evolve, I would be all for it. But unfortunately, this isn't a world where you can just fence in some corner of the globe. And so, we are faced with barbarians who have all the tools of the modern world but with a mindset not seen in the West since around the time of the Crusades.
For all our cultural evolution, we've become squeamish when it comes to dealing with savages on their level. Concepts of beauty and meaning are lost on them . . . the "better angels of our nature" cannot touch them.
These Iraqis who want to fight fire with fire? I'm all for it . . . the animals will understand nothing else. It's not something we're willing to do, and frankly it probably wouldn't work that well even if we did. But I find it to be a necessary thing.
Call me old-fashioned, hateful, closed-minded, or whatever you wish. But, as far as I'm concerned, there are rabid dogs loose in the Arab world. Rabid dogs are not to be fed or petted, and you don't try to house-break them. You just shoot them.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: hey jsaon a/s/l?
8)
...does....not...compute...
I only read in English (though I type in many inaccurate versions of Engligh).
Damn you kids with your new-fangled pig-latin and your ham-radios and counterstrike.... Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"there are rabid dogs loose in the Arab world."
We are lucky that Americans are rabider and doggier and just plain arrogant assholes.
Your attitude totally explains why your buildings get rammed into.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What a really shitty thing to say, UM. His attitude stems from the arab world's worst element killing thousands of innocent people without provocation: not the other way around.
It's not as though we invaded them and then were attacked, you know.
Notice they dont try this shit in Russia. And Russia actually inavded them without provocation! Someone in what remains of the USSR's military would get all nuc-le-ar on their asses.
It's sad that, as casualties mount, the idea that Arabs should be "wiped out" is becoming more prevalent- and not just here in the US either.
Consider this for irrational fear and hatred: there's a huge outbreak of Polio cases in Nigeria now because the muslim leaders are telling their followers that the WHO's immunization programs are an attempt o "make their women infertile and it's ab American plot". Man, if I believed that kind of crap, I'd hate the people I thought responsible as well.
Millions are being taught that anything non-muslim should be distrusted and hated.
It's not Muslims that are our enemy: it's the Whabbists. .....and they all stem from our "pals" in Saudi Arabia. Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Fuck Sandniggers!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You endorsing interracial sex, being sarcastic or making a racist statement?
All three?
Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Nothing of any sort.
I meant sand diggers, those guys needs love, too.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Oh! S'all good then. Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus: Your attitude totally explains why your buildings get rammed into.
Thank you for your anti-chronological thinking, lack of ethical sense even within the anti-contextual framework, and (shortly thereafter) an apparent attempt to misrepresent my statements as racial slurs against all Arabs of any philosophy.
Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Pleasure's all mine.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...attempt to misrepresent my statements as racial slurs against all Arabs of any philosophy."
"All"? Perhaps not literally. But you certainly made a broad enough generalization. You can't claim a statement isn't racist just because you put a mild qualifier on it. "Man, those camel jockeys are just fucking shitbags. Mostly." See, that doesn't work. And just because you used less blatantly ofensive language doesn't mean there was a significant difference.
"What a really shitty thing to say, UM."
Well, he was only responding in like kind.
"It's not as though we invaded them and then were attacked, you know."
We didn't? I guess that might be true, since you used the word "invade", and you're probably limiting its defintiion to "using our military to kill them and take their land". But the last time I checked there was not shortage of ways to fuck with a group of people without literally invading.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Man, I could just feel the love soon as I clicked in here.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Also, Russia is deeply, deeply invested in it's own War on Terror. Nobody tries this sort of thing in Russia? Partly that's because Al Qaeda already got what it wanted from them. And after driving the Soviets out, "they" (or rather, ideologically sympathetic groups in Afghanistan, who may or may not have been technically "Al Qaeda," but it doesn't really matter) took the war right to their doorstep in Chechnya and Dagestan.
I mean, if you had a purchased/stolen/captured nuclear weapon in, say, Pakistan, you'd have to smuggle it across a lot of ocean to blow up Washington D.C. You could just drive it into Moscow.
I mean, let's say the world goes topsy turvy and a Renewed Grand Islamic Caliphate is founded. We may have soldiers within its borders today, but Russia has territory. (OK, for values of Russia that include the entire Commonwealth.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yet, from a payback POV, the Afghanistan based Al Queida elements would have far more cause to hate the former Soviets than the US.
The US is just the target that envokes the most headlines just now, I guess.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Man, I could just feel the love soon as I clicked in here.
That should be the forum description. Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: You can't claim a statement isn't racist just because you put a mild qualifier on it.
At no point did I suggest that race was a factor. Any attempt on the part of a reader to claim otherwise is either error on the reader's part or an attempted ad hominem.
But, since I "never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity" (if you'll forgive the use of the quotation in this context), I must presume that it was a simple misreading.
At no point did my more venomous statements get directed at the entire population of the Arab world. Where I did engage in general statements that could be construed as attacks, it was in reference to the leadership, religious or otherwise, prevalent in the region.
So, I would say that there are a few labels which would fit. While not anti-Muslim, my statements were anti-Islam insofar as the more horrid formulations. This certainly extends to the adherents of those formulations, which is hardly a racial attack.
While not anti-Arab, my statements were anti-Arab-countries'-leadership-styles.
And so on. To claim that my statements were racist would be akin to equating an attack on American uber-right-wing psycho-religious militiamen to the statement "kill whitey!". Such an equation is wrong and unsupportable, just like the one you made.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Man, I could just feel the love soon as I clicked in here.
That should be the forum description.
OK. . . 8)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...a largely-backward region of the world where the culture and philosophy are ill-prepared for the bounty of the 21st Century."
That certainly sounds to me like a generalization about the entire Mid-East. You're essentially saying that their whole society (and, by extension, those who choose to live in it) is just less good than ours.
"But unfortunately, this isn't a world where you can just fence in some corner of the globe."
This sounds as though you're saying that you wish we could just wall the whole place in. That doesn't seem very fair to the people you claim you're not including in your statements.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
There is this tendency among pacifists to believe that violence solves nothing. Violence can solve a great many things. But when the problem is elementary violence, then I think you'll have to admit that the pacifists have a point.
If the situation was that some foreign power, England, say, decided that George W. Bush and his conservative supporters in the Republican Party presented a danger to international peace and stability, and managed (somehow, remember this is entirely hypothetical) to cripple American infrastructure, overwhelm US defenses, and capture our leaders; If it were British soldiers now occupying the White House and other strategic areas, securing resources, enforcing curfews, making arrests of key figures they suspected of continued resistance; If there were pale and pinkish lads perched on the backs of camoflage Land Rovers firing their large caliber machine guns blindly (because they couldn't tell the Democrats, Green and Libertarians from the Republicans) into the crowds of protesters (and don't tell me for a second that there wouldn't be protestors) throwing some rocks, how would it be then?
Would there be celebrations in the streets and hugging of our liberators? How would you expect the recently liberated American public to react? How about when they started helping us to rebuild, writing our new constitution, installing our new leaders? What would happen when it came out that certain higher ups in the British governement and military were profiting off this? When it came out that American dissidents in captured prisons had been subject to humiliation and even several instances of torture? Wouldn't you expect some uproar? Isn't this what the NRA has dreamed about lo these many years? And granted that ther would be violent resistance, wouldn't there then be savage retaliatory violence from our occupiers? Might there even be some armed militia groups fighting to suppress the violence of these resistance fighters? I think the real question would be whether any of this violence was getting anyone anywhere.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
And you could have, like, Thomas Jane doing a British accent playing Tony Blair!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"How about when they started helping us to rebuild, writing our new constitution, installing our new leaders?"
Don't forget the new flag they would design for us. It would probably look like France's, or something.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Also dont forget that for your analgy to be complete, first there'd have to be thousands of citizens inprisoned (including their children), tortured and killed by the government for anything Bush did'nt like, an ethnic minority to be systematically persecuted (including gassing) and dozens (if not hundreds) of mass graves full of victims.
Then, your supposed US would have to inavde Mexico for some reason, have UN resolutions invoked against it (wich would of course not stop France, Germany and Russia from doing business with them), have the UN set up a "no fly zone" that the US would violate and shoot at plans patrolling and of course, not allow UN weapons inspectors anything like a chance to find anything.
Then mabye your analgy would not be so idiotic.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
There are more anal guys in that last post than your average Man Train.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If we're going to go that far, I guess the country would have to be mostly desert. And it would have to be mainly inhabited by Muslim Arabs. And it would have to be Iraq.
Oh, by the way, we do unethically (if not illegally) imprison our own citizens with impunity. And we do torture people. Or did you miss that? I understand it was mentioned on the news a couple times.
By the way, if we didn't keep the UN stashed in our back pocket, and if we were a little country like Iraq, and if we still pulled the kind of shit we do now, do you really think we wouldn't have any sanctions against us?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
We dont torture our own citizens though...
Yet, anyway.
There really is a huge diffrence between a dictatorship like Iraq was and the US (even the version that Bush and company invision).
At least out Supreme Court has (finally) ruled that prisoners can't be held without representation or trial.
Republicans lost bigtime todaty as well: even moderate Republicans (McCain included) shot down their little hate-filled "constutional ammendment" to ban gay marriages.
So there's still plenty of hope for change within the system -that's something most Iraqis have never known. But hopefully will. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Hate-filled? Y'know, statements like that really piss me off. You do not know what motivates the people who supported that ammendment, but I can guarentee you that the vast majority of them are NOT motivated by hatred of gays, any more than those that oppose it are motivated by hatred of Christianity. Stereotypes like that are what lock us into this abysmal two-party system that we have now. Stop it please.
Somewhat on topic, did the provisional government change that flag yet?
Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
But, God Hates Fags, no?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Pastor Bob said so!
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
The new flag of Iraq is dead. The people rejected it, and so did the government. It was a bad idea and it crashed and burned.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Hate-filled? Y'know, statements like that really piss me off. You do not know what motivates the people who supported that ammendment, but I can guarentee you that the vast majority of them are NOT motivated by hatred of gays, any more than those that oppose it are motivated by hatred of Christianity. Stereotypes like that are what lock us into this abysmal two-party system that we have now. Stop it please.
Somewhat on topic, did the provisional government change that flag yet?
What would you call it when a group decalres that a minority does not deserve the same rights as themselves? If they arent motivated by hate, it's at least extreme prejeduce and bigotry.
I consider such intolerance to be a form of hate: in fact, so does the law. If someone is attacked because they're gay, it's a hate crime: somehow you feel that an attempt to limit their freedom is not.
How about this: each time you read about "banning gay marriage" just substitute "gay" with "black" and you'll see how the racisim of the past is still openly displayed on Capitol Hill.
Religon is just the excuse this time.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
What would you call it when a group decalres that a minority does not deserve the same rights as themselves?
I'd call them a group that believes that a minority does not deserve the same rights as themselves, and try to find out why they believe that. Having done so, I would then know that the people in question would argue that marriage is not so much a right as a public institution with certain defined boundaries. I would thus understand that it is not a matter of hatred in most cases, though since we're talking about dozens of people it's hard to make general statements.
You are making assumptions about what these people beleive instead of actually trying to find out, and declaring them to be bad people based on those assumptions. Further, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're evil. There may be prejudiced, bigoted and intolerant people among your opponents, but if you assume that before trying to find out the truth, you force yourselt to do battle with monsters that may not exist.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Why are we arguing gay marriage again here? Stop now or start another thread maybe. Or heck, use this one.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: We dont torture our own citizens though...
Right. As if it makes it ok if it's not our citizens. While you're sitting there, blip over to human rights watch or refuse and resist for some fine examples of our nations finest beating (and occasionally plunging) the crime out of our citizens. And then there is the issue of some truly scary shit which echoes the actions of a kooky group of up-and-coming krauts a few decades back. We do bad things to our own people.
The analogy with the occupied America is intended to make you uncomfortable. And of course it isn't perfect. I just feel like maybe we'd all understand the situation a little better if we put ourselves in the Iraqis shoes. I'm, how do you say? a bit not-a-fan of the Bush Administration. I think he's done horribly by his people and more-or-less ruined any sort of integrity we might have had in international politics. Furthermore I'm very concerned that he has and willcontinuetocircumvent the democratic process. I'd love to see the guy out on his tail. But if some foreign government swooped in, fucked our shit up, installed their puppet government and then not only sent my dad off to prison without explanation, but then made him lie in a pile of other naked dudes while some skank bitch took snapshots, you're damn right I'd be contemplating hucking some molotovs.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: There may be prejudiced, bigoted and intolerant people among your opponents, but if you assume that before trying to find out the truth, you force yourselt to do battle with monsters that may not exist.
Oh...those monsters DO exist: Turn on Jerry Falwell sometime and hear him decree to his followers how gays are "an abomination" and you can hear the echo of Hitler in the 1930's. How much justification for violence do that small element need when they're told that their god condemns gays?
Watch a "Right to Life" rally and you'll see their leaders allude to violence just as much as at any KKK rally. Passions run from high to fanatical and violent far too often.
99% of all religous groups are peaceful despite their beliefs but in a country as large as the US, 1% is still thousands that would resort to violence.
I'd wager that's far more than even the very worst case Homeland Security estimate of terrorists in our country.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: There are more anal guys in that last post than your average Man Train.
I bet you've done statistical research to back up that supposition. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Watch a "Right to Life" rally and you'll see their leaders allude to violence just as much as at any KKK rally.
And how many of those people had a vote on the amendment, exactly?
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
φ-somethingawful
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Watch a "Right to Life" rally and you'll see their leaders allude to violence just as much as at any KKK rally.
And how many of those people had a vote on the amendment, exactly?
None directly: just their campaign contributions. It's also why this shit is considered at all.
Oh sure, you can site demographics all day on people being for or against but it comes down what groups will support your next campaign.
Dont under-estimate the pull of the extreme right.
I'm not singling out either party: special intrest payback is a problem on both sides.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
