Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Bush Blames 'Junk Lawsuits' for Job Woes (yahoo)

I am a defense lawyer. And even I don't believe this. Why, bilmore, why?

Because if you say it enough it becomes a plausible theory. See: Creationism. See also: "Bush caused the recession of 2000-2001"
complaints, "OJ was framed", etc...

Hell, Bush had half the country thinking the inheritance tax will wipe out their families. And amaziongly, he's got the very people getting bent over Ned Beatty-in-Deliverance style by the current economy eating some hogwash about how he's "creating jobs."

The funniest people are the guys losing jobs but nevertheless voting for Bush because "He has values." Yeh, he does... but do you buy stock in a corp because the CEO is a God-fearing churchgoer? Well, how is the President any different than a CEO? If your sense of being is that entwined with the message of a politician, you've got to stop dwelling on "values' and seek a shrink about "issues." I don't give a fuck if my president is giving dirty Sanchezes to half the interns and wiping his fingers in the Declaration of Independence afterward so long as he's wisely stewarding the economy...

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Okay, I did.

What I think is that you are completely avoiding the point, and making up your own.

For your sake, I hope it's willful.

Ok, Bilmorski, we'll try to lay it all out for you.

Your point is that you would kill anyone who in any way indicated a willingness to accede to Islam; kill them before they convert.

First, you kill the terrorist.

Then, you kill the brother of the terrorist who disagreed with his tactics but didn't turn him in because he was his brother.

Then, you kill the neighbor who disagreed with his tactics but didn't turn him in out of fear for his life.

Then you kill the Egyptian politician who makes an accomodation with radical Islam because if he doesnt, they'll kill him and make sure he's replaced with someone more radical.

And don't forget to kill the Harvard professor who discusses radical Islam as a rational reaction to Western imperialism.

OK, do I have your point right initially? Or do you draw the line before the Harvard professor?

If you want my reaction to this, even setting Wonk's point that you're turning yourself into an advocate of terrorism to combat the terrorists, it is that you will create a whole new generation of terrorists by following this approach.

How to eliminate terrorism? Infiltrate and undermine the terrorist cells, deal severely with the guilty, and, most importantly of all, separate the terrorists from the broader community, don't drive them together. Starve them of resources and don't let them have any impact. And you won't separate them from their community if your attitude toward the community is to "kill them all".

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Okay, I did.

What I think is that you are completely avoiding the point, and making up your own.

For your sake, I hope it's willful.

Sometimes you're obtuse. It sounds like what you're saying here is you hope GGG is intentionally pretending not to get it, because otherwise he really is stupid.

FWIW, I'm willing to bet form a month's support of the board on the question "Is GGG actually really stupid?"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ok, Bilmorski, we'll try to lay it all out for you.

Your point is that you would kill anyone who in any way indicated a willingness to accede to Islam; kill them before they convert.

First, you kill the terrorist.

Then, you kill the brother of the terrorist who disagreed with his tactics but didn't turn him in because he was his brother.

Then, you kill the neighbor who disagreed with his tactics but didn't turn him in out of fear for his life.

Then you kill the Egyptian politician who makes an accomodation with radical Islam because if he doesnt, they'll kill him and make sure he's replaced with someone more radical.

And don't forget to kill the Harvard professor who discusses radical Islam as a rational reaction to Western imperialism.

OK, do I have your point right initially? Or do you draw the line before the Harvard professor?

Don't you dare let any professor go b.

If you want my reaction to this, even setting Wonk's point that you're turning yourself into an advocate of terrorism to combat the terrorists, it is that you will create a whole new generation of terrorists by following this approach.

How to eliminate terrorism? Infiltrate and undermine the terrorist cells, deal severely with the guilty, and, most importantly of all, separate the terrorists from the broader community, don't drive them together. Starve them of resources and don't let them have any impact. And you won't separate them from their community if your attitude toward the community is to "kill them all".

This thread started with people saying that the Islamic people themselves need to do something in those countries to turn things. Osama has become an extremely popular name in Islamic countries (at least some). Do you think it'll be hard for US to "separate the terrorists from the broader community?"

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Cool. I show you a list of twenty years of Islamicist terrorism directed at infidels. You give me one bombing by a nutcase backed by no organization. I suggest in past posts that we are confronted with a movement - a virulent Islamicist movement (note the distinction between that and Islamic) - bent on returning world power to their gawd. I also suggest that, given the scope and horror of their thinking and actions, I would be proud to participate in their end. I make it clear that I include, as I said, participants, supporters, and the quiet sort of suppporters who won't say anything against butchering little kids, agree that Allah should rule the whole earth, and don't mind this path to that end.

And I'm a racist.

Ran out of arguments, huh?

Let's for a moment set aside the fact that the "lone nutcase" didn't act alone and was part of an extensive network. You are choosing to ignore the point I was making, so let['s just focus on the Islamicists...

"...and the quiet sort of supporters who won't say anything against butchering little kids, agree that Allah should rule the whole Earth, and don't mind this path to that end."

And you would identify these people how, Bilmore? More importantly, the nukes you would agree we ought to drop are going to distinguish other Arabs from these people how?

We agree that there is a war going on. We even agree that this war needs to be fought. However, we part company on methods and targets.

If we choose to make innocents, and if they aren't combatants they are innocents*, combatants then the terrorists have won. We will have abandoned the principals that set us above the terrorists and you will succeed in making all Arabs combatants. See, if we try to kill them all, we force them all to fight. If this is the strategy then we should look to Vietnam and Algeria for our lessons. Terrorism works when it succeeds in making its victims become so oppressive, so totalitarian in "preserving order" that the whole populace becomes alienated and turns to violence as its only means of protection.

You have left yourself in a hole where your only means of identifying those who you have labeled the enemy is the color of their skin, their language, and their home. That is racism, pure and simple. If you can't see that, you have lost sight of your message. If you can see that and you don't care you aren't thinking like a racist; you are a racist.


*You can't define an enemy by the thoughts in his head. We have an inalienable right to be free in our thoughts and in our speech. If this war is worth fighting, it has to be about bringing these rights to all people.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you think it'll be hard for US to "separate the terrorists from the broader community?"

Damn, I hadn't realized that would be hard.

OK, you got me, let's invade someone instead.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

This thread started with people saying that the Islamic people themselves need to do something in those countries to turn things. Osama has become an extremely popular name in Islamic countries (at least some). Do you think it'll be hard for US to "separate the terrorists from the broader community?"

I think G3s point was that it is certainly harder to separate the terrorists from the borader community now that two years of disasterous policies by the current administration have lead directly to the skyrocketing popularity of Osama in many Islamic communities.

Fine, Muslims themselves need to start mobilizing their communities against terrorists. But we could at least stop undermining their efforts at every turn.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Damn, I hadn't realized that would be hard.

OK, you got me, let's invade someone instead.

Conf. to GGG Dude I'm trying to drum up some funds for the board, and you ain't making my job easy- you're fucking up the odds. you've got to go a little easier for awhile.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I think G3s point was that it is certainly harder to separate the terrorists from the borader community now that two years of disasterous policies by the current administration have lead directly to the skyrocketing popularity of Osama in many Islamic communities.

Fine, Muslims themselves need to start mobilizing their communities against terrorists. But we could at least stop undermining their efforts at every turn.

Osama was popular before Iraq war. 80% of saudis hated us on 9/11. What Bush policies? Backing out of Kyoto?

[Gattigap]

GWB continues to provide us with nifty anecdotes on the campaign trail.

The Republican president, long known for verbal and grammatical lapses, included the anecdote about obstetrician gynecologists in his stump speech attacking Democratic presidential rival Sen. John Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, a former trial lawyer.


At a rally of cheering supporters in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Bush made his usual pitch for limiting "frivolous lawsuits" that he said drive up the cost of health care and run doctors out of business.


But then he added, "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

Hah! Let's see Edwards trot out some poor med-mal victim to counter that!

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You're avoiding answering his question by saying that your points should not lead to his question.

While you're probably right about the lack of participation of others in the OK City bombing, you're not quite right to say McVeigh was "backed by no organization." How do you think he met Terry Nichols?

You're probably well up on this point, but if not, take a quick "Google" of the term "Christian Identity". What Taxwonk seems to be asking is whether we should now, or should have then, taken violent action against all those Americans in, affiliated with, or supporting that movement after the OK City bombings. [Or, perhaps, a mostly separate group -- all those Americans who quietly support the murder of doctors who commit abortions.]

Taxwonk may not know, (or it may not be relevant to his point) that a combination of government infiltration, economic recovery, and forcible federal responses against certain goups drained much of the life out of the Christian Identity movement in the late 1990s. Still, his question remains: Should we kill them all to keep the movement from rising again?

S_A_M

The Christian Identity Movement, the Church of the Creator, and the Militia Movement are all regaining strength, at least in part in anticipation of the coming race war the current Arab conflict is predicted to precipitate.

But, and Bilmore overlooked this point because he has no answer to it other than the obvious one, I was using McVeigh and the radical fundamentalist movement in the US to demonstrate that Bilmore won't raise the same arguments if you ask him to support their application to white Americans.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Conf. to GGG Dude I'm trying to drum up some funds for the board, and you ain't making my job easy- you're fucking up the odds. you've got to go a little easier for awhile.

Hank,

I know you like to show up here whenever the rights taking a beating and knock the discussion level down a few points, but can you at least put some of this stuff in Haiku so it's just a bit amusing?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
GWB continues to provide us with nifty anecdotes on the campaign trail.

My favorite part was:
The Republican president, long known for verbal and grammatical lapses,

imagine how unflattering Reuters would be if there wasn't that conservative bias in the media.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Okay, I did.

What I think is that you are completely avoiding the point, and making up your own.

For your sake, I hope it's willful.

If one person does it, they call him crazy, they'll ignore him.

If two people, I say if two people march into a recruiting station and sing "You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant," they'll call them both fags and they won't do anything.

But if three people, I said three people, (like Greedy^3, SAM, and me) march into a recruiting station and sing "You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant," then you've got a movement.

Think, Bilmore, think.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ok, Bilmorski, we'll try to lay it all out for you.

Your point is that you would kill anyone who in any way indicated a willingness to accede to Islam; kill them before they convert.

First, you kill the terrorist.

Then, you kill the brother of the terrorist who disagreed with his tactics but didn't turn him in because he was his brother.

Then, you kill the neighbor who disagreed with his tactics but didn't turn him in out of fear for his life.

Then you kill the Egyptian politician who makes an accomodation with radical Islam because if he doesnt, they'll kill him and make sure he's replaced with someone more radical.

Way too wide. I speak of the person who quietly, maybe silently, thinks that the terrorism of the last twenty years by the Islamicists is acceptable, says nothing against it, and applauds to himself with each butchery, because it serves the will of gawd. You try to include the unwilling, some out of fear. As I said, it's tough to tell them apart, (the "hats" comment?) which is what prevents action, but don't try to expand my group and then tell me I'm over-inclusive.

And don't forget to kill the Harvard professor who discusses radical Islam as a rational reaction to Western imperialism.

Substitute MIT, and let's talk.

. . . .you will create a whole new generation of terrorists by following this approach.

Old canard. New terrorists don't seem to be lacking at this point. Are you saying that we should be negotiating with OBL? After all, he seems to command lots of respect and love.

How to eliminate terrorism? Infiltrate and undermine the terrorist cells, deal severely with the guilty, and, most importantly of all, separate the terrorists from the broader community, don't drive them together. Starve them of resources and don't let them have any impact. And you won't separate them from their community if your attitude toward the community is to "kill them all".

You simply define "the guilty" slightly differently than do I. The rest is in conformance with my ideas.