Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
How do you feel about taking this poll?
Absurd 10%
Elated 23%
Indifferent 38%
Overwhelmed 5%
Uncouth 7%
Yucky (sometimes) 15%

Votes: 39

 Twelve Steps Towards Eradicating Terrorism

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Oct 29, 2001
 Comments:
Sure, some may argue that terrorism is a natural response to bloated military �berpowers, but this position is political suicide. Thus, George W. Jr. has promised to rid the world of terrorism. And he needs your help! So here's my guide to joining Mr. Bush in his posturing, preaching and ethnic cleansing. Let's begin!
justice

More stories about Justice
Seeking a Sensible Tomorrow: The Media Marketing Accountability Act
The Law Fought The Law And Nobody Won
Goths and Vampirism - A final solution?
Marion 'Suge' Knight to be released - Young white rap fans in danger ?
Dungeons and Dragons: Don't Let it Happen to Your Kid
An Essay on Microsoft
Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics
Arriving in Ethiopia, West of Somalia
Newsflash! America's holy war begins!
Expanding equality under the law
Please Don't Kill Osama Bin Laden
New Crimes, New Punishments, A New America
Torture - it's inevitable, so lets do it right !
Repeal the Drunk Driving Laws Now
1. Kill an Arab - In Arizona, Francisco Roque shot and killed Balbir Sodhi, while he was landscaping outside his business. Do not trust "innocent" immigrants! Sure, Sodhi, being from India, was neither Arab nor Muslim, but who cares? He certainly wasn't a REAL American, like our man Francisco.

2. Sing "God Bless America" - Whether you're a corporate-sponsored legislator or a Wall Street hoarder, nothing proves your dedication to your nation like singing a song. True, it was the abuses of these two groups that prompted the terrorist attacks in the first place, but so what? They must be innocent. They sang!

3. Watch video replays of the inferno on CNN - Surprisingly, the variety of angles from which you have repeatedly seen two airliners plow into the ex-towers of the World Trade Center do not increase your knowledge one iota. This is not information, but entertainment. Similarly, photos of people leaping to their death are useful only as unit-shifters. So grab some popcorn, set the VCR on extended play, press record and enjoy!

4. Ruin someone's life - In these scandal-soaked times, it's good to see that CNN has not forgotten the power of libel. CNN reported that Adnan Bukhari and his brother Ameer were two of the pilots who crashed into the former World Trade Center. While their investigative techniques were above reproach, the truth of these accusations is doubtful. Adnan is still living in Florida, and his brother died last year in an unrelated plane crash. Kudos Ted Turner!

5. Purchase a piece of official World Trade Center ShrapnelTM - Sorry to say, eBay has already pulled the plug on auctions of pieces of the WTC. Don't worry, though, you're in luck! Simply send me $3,000 and I'll mail you a piece of concrete that could very well have come from a building much like the WTC.(1)

6. Fly the American flag - The House of Representatives recently passed a bill urging all Americans to fly the stars and stripes at home. You can even download a free flag screensaver! Fun fact: in recent years, the phrase "flag-waving" has become a synonym for pointless actions masquerading as legitimate ones. I wonder why...

7. Label all who oppose you - Look, it's simple: If you believe in killing American civilians, you are a radical terrorist. If you believe in killing Middle Eastern civilians, you are defending freedom. Similarly, if you sacrifice yourself in a battle against a much larger foe, you are a coward, while if you hunt out pockets of lightly-armed militias with the world's most heavily-funded military, you are a brave leader. Understand?

8. Give an interview - National leaders, eyewitnesses, experts and incidentals have been furiously speaking to cameras throughout the rescue effort. While some might say this accomplishes nothing, others would agree. Of course, this will provide a wealth of footage for campaign commercials in years to come. Joy!

9. Join the Army - Unfortunately for the newly-shorn, a campaign against the military might of Afghanistan is likely to be short lived. Your humiliation, hazing, and reconstruction (read: boot camp) will take far longer than the few weeks of carpet-bombing we have planned. Do not despair! We will no doubt be targeting another defenseless country of non-white people in the near future. Hurrah!

10. Make some money - Take a mediocre song. Re-release it, but this time sample some timely news clips and run them during the bridge. Don't worry that the song was originally a love ballad, and that the sampled clips are obviously tacked on. Label the single "A Heroic Salute: <song name> WTC Remix 2001" and watch the cash roll in!

11. Participate in a post-attack poll - Surprisingly, 97% of Americans polled had participated in a poll following the terrorist attack in NYC.(2) 39% reacted angrily towards the poll, 28% were sad, and 19% asked me to repeat the question. An additional 14% were unsure, while a further 5% were extraneous.

12. Kill an Afghan - While this may seem the same as killing an Arab (see #1) it's not. An Arab is a member of any Arabic-speaking people, include countries such as Jordan, Syria and Malta. An Afghan, on the other hand, is a citizen of Afghanistan. Perhaps they don't speak Arabic at all! For bonus points, try wrapping an Afghan in an afghan and beating him to death with the frozen corpse of an Afghan hound.(3)

There you are! Now is the time to step up, be counted, and get behind America's effort to rid the world of terrorism (or at the very least, afghans). After purging the world's terrorism, George W. has sworn to eliminate crime, traffic, and night worries. Have no fear, Georgie, no one would dare call you a wimp after this! We're behind you 100%!(4)


(1) Shipping and handling not included.
(2) Margin of error � 3%
(3) I do not endorse the freezing of canines.
(4) Margin of error � 99.9%


exactly what would not be funny? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by philipm on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 04:47:21 PM PST
The Author seems very confused about this whole terrorism thing. As with countries, the key to terrorism is setting up the proper link between cause and effect.

For example, make a statement that for every 1000 americans that die on american soil, an area the size of texas will be nuked, centered on the first group that thinks its not such a bad idea after all to kill 1000 people. And make it 1000, we want to make it hard for the kooks. For every building that falls down, 10 random American extremists will be shot, along with 1000 extermist middle easterners - I guess the're not that many moderates there. Also make it punishable by death to report on terrorism. See, all these things actually do something. God forbid we try a solution that actually works.

Of-course, the jews are not the good guys either. Be sure to read the Einstein Hoax part.


--philipm

Liberalist "arithmetic" (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 09:45:54 PM PST
Oh, I see. Obviously, one American life is equal to 100 non-American lives. This is exactly the kind of warped double standard the U.S. liberalist regime encourages; and you wonder why people hate you?! Wake up, you're the Evil Empire now.


--
Peace and much love...




Liberalism (4.50 / 2) (#10)
by Richard C Suquer on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 10:30:18 PM PST
As a lifelong Liberal (bleeding heart and proud of it), I take offense at your stereotyping of Liberals. We are not killers. The "Liberalist Regime" has never been in power in the United States of Amerikkka long enough to make a difference, but if we were, we'd pass a law making War and Violence illegal.

As an oppressed class, terrorists need to be treated with respect and dignity. This is the policy of the "U.S. Liberal Regime" -- not violence. We realize that USia is seen as an "evil empire" as you succinctly put it, and to counter this negative image we have encouraged many programs like Affirmative Action and Meals On Wheels.

Yes, George W. Bush and his cronies may have a stranglehold on our country now, but please don't think that all Americans share his views. Myself and other members of the Liberalist Regime, Inc. are working hard to have him kicked out of office. We are even hiring interns to seduce him (so far we've not been successful).

Of course there are a few minor exceptions to our policy of non-violence: I for one encourage the killing of Americans, so long as they are white males. Also, Palestinians. Palestinians should be all killed. Why? Simply because the best way to end oppression is to kill the oppressors!

Thoughtfully yours,
Richard

--
Revolution from Below! GPL the Constitution!

interns from heaven (none / 0) (#18)
by linuxrulez on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 06:24:20 AM PST
We are even hiring interns to seduce him (so far we've not been successful).
Why's that? He too drunk to fuck?


 
Once again (none / 0) (#38)
by Husaria on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 12:52:09 PM PST
Mr. Suger shows his true colors by advocating genocide. A liberal would not advocate the killing of a ethnic group, but Suger, a self proclaimed liberal has done so, any other country would have you shit on and flushed away, but the US protects your right to state bullshit, and for that you should be thankful
Sig sigger

Liberalism == Genocide. (none / 0) (#42)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:14:27 PM PST
With rare exceptions, of course. Sometimes non-liberalists commit genocide, too.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Cluebador (1.00 / 1) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:49:03 PM PST
Ah, Husaria, another bright bulb immune to irony...


 
*Of course* American lives are more valuable (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by moriveth on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 02:12:54 AM PST
The U.S. government is a government by and for the people of America. Why could a democratic government possibly value the lives of its own citizens? Your "logic" leads to the perposterous--not to mention self-destructive--conclusion that America is morally obligated to sacrifice an American life save, say, 1.3 Nigerians. There just aren't that many of us, and a whole lot more of them.

In any case, as a democratic government, America will take whatever measures necessary to effectively defend its citizens, even if it means spilling a little non-American blood. It would be grossly negligent, and possibly treasonous, to do otherwise.

But, in fact, this is a win-win situation for America and Islam. In the long run, tough love will be as beneficial for Islam as for America. Muslims might not yet speak the language of freedom and democracy, but they understand the language of force. For example, when Syrian President Hafez al-Assad literally leveled the rebellious city of Hama in 1982, he successfully quelled the Islamic radical dissent; Syria has been free of internal strife ever since, a tremendous long-term gift to its citizens. Shouldn't we consider a similar approach?

tkatchev, your mistake, like that of many analysts, lies in thinking like a Westerner. It's time we start thinking like Muslims.


Bakunin on for the people (none / 0) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 3rd, 2001 at 03:46:15 AM PST
"The sacremental formula for governing the masses of people - for their own good no doubt, for the salvation of their souls, if not their bodies - used by saints as well as by the nobles in the theocratic and aristocratic States, and also by the intellectuals and the rich people in the doctrinaire, liberal, and even republican States based upon universal suffrage, is always the same: "Everything for the people, nothing by the people."" -Mihail Bakunin

The people in republican states vote for representatives. No direct control is excercised by the people.



 
Relative worth (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 12:04:31 PM PST
Damn right my fellow countrymen are worth more than yours. Ten of ours for one of yours, more if you'd like. If you dare to attack my family, my friends or my country, I will kill as many of you as possible. If some of your family, friends or countrymen die because you hide behind them, is that my fault? If you'd like to ramp up the battle, I'm sure that that could be arranged.


 
What the FUCK? (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:35:59 PM PST
Obviously, one American life is equal to 100 non-American lives. This is exactly the kind of warped double standard the U.S. liberalist regime encourages ..

Are you out of your mind? You obviously have very little clue as to how the political machinery of the U.S. works. The liberals in the U.S. have always been the ones preaching equality ("we all share the same world, we all breathe the same air, and we are all mortal.") The conservative and fundamentalist types are the ones who believe that one American life is worth the same as 100 Arab lives. This is because they (apparently) believe that we are the "chosen people" of various gods, jesuses, etc. and that we are superior to everybody else on the planet in virtually every way. They are the ones taking notes on who isn't flying flags and singing "god bless America" and accusing anybody who questions U.S. policy of "treason." If you had an ounce of sense in that god damned cranium of yours you would realize that your "liberalists" are actually your allies.


No. (none / 0) (#27)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:28:53 AM PST
Clinton is a liberalist, and one of the best examples of the kind of American double-standard thinking that the world hates. No matter what American liberals say, I think their actions speak louder than words.


--
Peace and much love...




*wince* (none / 0) (#28)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 03:17:10 AM PST
This is gonna hurt me to ask this, but I am genuinely curious. Please bear in mind that I voted against Clinton in both elections and considered the man a liar and a cheat just from his campaign promises. But in spite of all that, just how did Clinton demonstrate the "one American life is equal to 100 non-American lives?" It is the duty of any President (or any national leader, for that matter) to put the welfare of his fellow citizens against that of the rest of the world, but I don't recall Clinton ever demonstrating the level of amorality that you seem to assign to him.

I might sound like a broken record, but I keep asking because it keeps being relevant. Exactly how is it that liberals are guilty of the abuses you claim? What actions justify your statement?



A troll's true colors.

Totalitarianism in action... (none / 0) (#29)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 05:32:48 AM PST
Um, hold on: what about bombing maternity homes and television stations in Serbia? Bombing Red Cross vans? Bombing passenger trains?

There is absolutely no way you can justify that. You are guilty, and the world will not forget, much less forgive.


--
Peace and much love...




Either you are a troll or an idiot. (none / 0) (#36)
by FreemoreJohnson on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 12:45:56 PM PST
You are guilty, and the world will not forget, much less forgive.

This is insane stereotyping. Thousands of innocent people die in one day in New York City and somehow we Americans, as a group, are collectively guilty? This is just insane. If you are going to make accusations against a people freshly wounded at least have the brains and the balls to explain yourself.

For the record, I think the U.S. government is making the only responsible and possible choice in trying to destroy the terrorists who did this, but that's just me. (Personally I think that there is a moral difference between intentionally targeting civilians and unintentionally killing people.) My country is a plurality of opinions and it's baseless to say all citizens are guilty of wartime actions.

You should be wary of the type of collective guilt you are advocating for tkatchev.


I am advocating nothing. (none / 0) (#39)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:07:22 PM PST
Sorry if I was sloppy in my wording, but I had no intent to advocate anything.

I was simply stating a fact. An obvious fact, if you live outside of the U.S.

Personally, I think blaming the American people for the actions of a few deranged individuals is just plain wrong.

But, what can you do?


--
Peace and much love...




Precisely (none / 0) (#44)
by FreemoreJohnson on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:48:19 PM PST
Personally, I think blaming the American people for the actions of a few deranged individuals is just plain wrong.

Exactly so.

And, by the way, you should be able to see the difference between fighting a regime protecting terrorists and targeting civilians. Even if innocent people are killed in both scenarios, as I said before, there is a real moral difference.


 
Don't make accusations like that. (none / 0) (#58)
by em on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 01:19:11 AM PST
Tkatchev is not a troll. He is a prolific Adequacy poster. If he were a troll, we would have deleted his account already. But, since he's not a troll, he has never been subject to any such account deletion, neither here nor in any other site you may have heard of. This is a fact, and as such, indisputable.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


 
Hmm... (none / 0) (#37)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 12:48:36 PM PST
Military imprecision is the hobgoblin of any armed conflict. My opinion of using military force is on record here, but by your logic, any country that uses military force is going to be damned for committing such attrocities, and the rest of the NATO nations involved in Serbia are just as guilty. The art of destruction is simply not that precise.

This is not to say that the death of innocents is in any way justified. I'm saying that the death of innocents is the only constant in war, and I don't believe Clinton or the US should be any more villified for it than Britain, France or Russia. I'd be happier if it wasn't done at all, but I'm not going to blame it on any "Liberalist" agenda. The "Conservative" agenda is just as guilty.



A troll's true colors.

"Impresision"? (none / 0) (#40)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:10:08 PM PST
Wow, that is an understatement... No comment.

Look, bombing a maternity home is not "military impresision". It is a bona-fide war crime, a horrible atrocity.

Calling the slaughter of innocent mothers with their infants "military imprecision" is like calling Nazi death camps an "unfortunate mismanagement error".


--
Peace and much love...




Oh, I am so dreadfully sorry... (none / 0) (#41)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:12:09 PM PST
Sorry for the horrible misspelling -- "imprecision" instead of "impresision", of course.

My fingers are getting ahead of my brain. :(((


--
Peace and much love...




 
Management error (none / 0) (#46)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:54:42 PM PST
Did I suggest that it is anything less than evil? Did I imply that it was acceptable or justified? No. I simply said that it is a fact of military action that things like that happen. The only thing I said was that neither the US nor Clinton can be held any more responsible than any other nation that engages in military action. It happens all the time no matter who is behind the bomb. The fact that the press has more tools and is used more often during military conflicts means it comes to light more often. Call it a mistake or a war crime, it's gotten any worse than before. The US did not say "let's go bomb a maternity home!" They said "let's bomb a military target." Either their intelligence was faulty or the bomb went astray. Either way it's a crime that has been repeated throughout military history, and will continue as long as humans engage in war.

There is no excuse for bombing innocent targets. That doesn't mean that anyone is more guilty than anyone else. The only ones who are blameless are the victims themselves.



A troll's true colors.

You are so dreadfully deluded... (1.00 / 1) (#52)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 03:04:52 PM PST
But, that is exactly the point:

The U.S. did say "let's go bomb a maternity home".

It was not a mistake. There is no way it could have been a mistake. Saying that bombing a maternity home happened "by mistake" is tantamount to saying that the Nazi government gassed 6 million people "by mistake".

As far as I am concerned, the Clinton government is as evil as the Hitler government.


--
Peace and much love...




Uh HUH. (none / 0) (#54)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 03:49:04 PM PST
And where is this nefarious statement recorded? Who scooped this story? I admit I didn't much care for the Serbian conflict, but I like to think I would have noticed a news item like that.



A troll's true colors.

Goebbels would be proud. (none / 0) (#57)
by tkatchev on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 12:18:55 AM PST
"The more outrageous the lie, the more people believe it."
(Sorry, don't want to look up the exact quote right now.)

Of course, unless the state-run U.S. media machine reports it, it cannot be true. Even if it contradict the most basic laws of logic and physics.


--
Peace and much love...




Forget the State (none / 0) (#69)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Nov 5th, 2001 at 10:40:10 PM PST
This is a hell of a news item. If it's true, somebody had to mention it somewhere. So what's your source? I'm still betting it's from the depths of your fevered imagination.



A troll's true colors.

 
Explain (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 03:50:05 PM PST
Given their (repugnant and indefensible) beliefs and goals, all well-documented, the Nazis' systematic extermination of members of minority groups, also exhaustively researched and documented, was a logical series of actions undertaken for the sole purpose of reaching a desired outcome.

I'm not familiar with the other incident (bombing of the maternity home), but as you emphatically assert that it was no more a mistake than the Nazi's actions, I invite you to summarize the logical reasons why the perpetrators would have taken this deliberate action, including why it was the appropriate method, what goal it would achieve, and why this goal would outweigh the forseeable negative consequences, as well as providing some reasonable amount of concrete evidence supporting the existence of such a goal and the veracity of the deliberateness of the subsequent actions.

(N.B. I don't want to put words in your mouth: I'm not suggesting that you would contradict the first paragraph, although if you want to, it would be an acceptable way of proving your ludicrous allegation of equivalence of the two actions.)


Dense and denser... (1.00 / 1) (#63)
by tkatchev on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 10:12:25 PM PST
The reason for maternity home bombings (among others, I repeat; there were many similar atrocities perpetrated) was simply to terrorize the world. To prove to the world that the U.S. will not be stopped by any moral, ethical, or religious qualm. To prove to the world that nobody is safe, that the U.S. is perfectly happy to slaughter infants to achieve e.g. lower oil prices, or more convinient trade routes[1].

To prove to the world that the U.S. has a kind of "carte blanche", that moral or ethical issues simply do not concern the U.S. government. That from now on, an infant child is no different to the U.S. government from a frozen chicken.


--
Peace and much love...




Silly me (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by vor on Mon Nov 5th, 2001 at 01:46:03 PM PST
I see. So perhaps what you are suggesting is that in places like Afghanistan, the millions of dollars of military hardware is actually targeted at maternity hopsitals, and anything that happens to miss, and fall on a Taliban tank, is just an accident?

Most states or organisations that utilise terrorist methods do not spend 99.99% of their time and money on self-defeating actions like denouncing terrorism, providing humanitarian aid, attacking legitimate military tagets, and building international coalitions against their own strategies. If they wish to prove "that moral or ethical issues simply do not concern the U.S. government" then they don't seem to be going about it in a very intelligent fashion.

It seems to me that if I wanted the world to know that I was a ruthless unpitying bastard, and I had an arsenal full of nice shiny nuclear weapons, there would be a somewhat simpler route...




There is a precedent... (none / 0) (#70)
by dmg on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 08:58:36 AM PST
It seems to me that if I wanted the world to know that I was a ruthless unpitying bastard, and I had an arsenal full of nice shiny nuclear weapons, there would be a somewhat simpler route...

Its been done in the past don't forget, WWII was a nuclear war.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

 
force ANTHRAX to change their name!!! (1.00 / 1) (#61)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 02:50:55 PM PST
YEP.


 
Flying flags... (none / 0) (#9)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 09:55:52 PM PST
You know, the U.S. government's urging to fly flags reminds me of something -- in the xUSSR, the regime used to love pointless self-aggrandizements like that. For example, they had a penchant for highway billboards with slogans like "Glory to the party!" or somesuch. All in all, the U.S. government's actions are eerily similar.

Also, I noticed recently that Bush W. has taken to wearing a little pin-up flag on his suit lapels; this is also a hallmark of a totalitarian regime. Look at the current North Korean dictator, if you don't believe me; I think the guy has not one but two pin-up pennants on his suit. I guess he thinks that makes him some some sort of heavy-duty industrial-strength dictator...


--
Peace and much love...




 
13. Accuse Congressman Condit of a coverup (3.00 / 2) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 10:16:51 PM PST
I boobalicious babe is worth all of Afghanistan. Well, its true isnt it?


 
Give me a string bean! (2.33 / 3) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 12:39:18 AM PST
I'm a hungry man!


 
Fight hate with love. (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 01:12:00 AM PST
Hate is mindless. It stems from being out of touch with the divine True religious feeling can never motivate anyone to kill. The only effective way to counteract terrorist acts is through nonviolence. Using violence and hatred will only spawn more violence and hatred.

We must look past our self-centered desires. We must think in the long term. We must welcome these terrorist bombs as tests of our true resolve to work toward a better world, one where our children's children might grow up in a world free from hatred, prejudice, and violence. Even as the flaming jet fuel incinerates our bodies, even as tons of concrete pulverize our bones, if we do not give in to hatred, then they have not won. Every day in which loving, unselfish people refuse to succumb to the base desire to hurt other human beings is a day in which the world is made a better place: "A mighty stream is but a thousand thousand tiny droplets", says the Tao.

The terrorists will continue to kill, that may be true, but each time we let them cut us down, if those remaining continue to hold open their arms in a sincere gesture of love, they who deal out death will slowly but surely, oh, as surely as the hideous, predatory larva becomes the glittering, nectar-feeding damnselfly, see the error of their ways.

Our love can beat their hate if we all stand together. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. showed that. Mahatma Ghandi showed that. As the pacifist and vegetarian Leo Tolstoy wrote: "Men tread upon the grass, and mow it with their scythes. Yet always it grows back, cool, green, and lush. Where upon the whole of the earth is there a lush, green man?"


Correction. (none / 0) (#13)
by tkatchev on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 01:49:48 AM PST
"Pacifist and vegetarian" Leo Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Church for his satanic and misanthropist views. The problem is that if you spend too much time thinking about "global good", you tend to lose sight of the quite concrete suffering happening right in front of your nose.

Try to be kinder to people around you instead of pondering global injustice.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Don't get me wrong....... (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 03:50:47 AM PST
Most Americans probably deserve to die more than any other society on the face of the planet. We have become egotistical thinking our system is so much better than the rest of the world. Take the scene from Dogma when the two angels judge the boardroom of Mooby the golden calf. That could probably be done in just about any room of 10-20 americans anywhere in this country.

Religion is at the heart of the problem here. Both theirs and ours. All religion. I say it again. Religion is the problem. The very people with the What Would Jesus Do? Bumper Stickers are now the ones calling for the destruction of Afganistan. When in reality Jesus when attack let himself die on the cross when, according to your bible, he could've just commanded the vengance of God and destroyed the whole group of idiots who were nailing him up there to begin with. Hypocrisy. Following the WWJD lifestyle would mean we turn our cheek, take it on the chin, and continue to help and support those who attacked us. To do otherwise destroys every ounce of arguement you have for your religious convictions.

~aphryo


Ok (none / 0) (#19)
by Right Hand Man on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 08:47:30 AM PST
We have become egotistical thinking our system is so much better than the rest of the world.

So? Our system is so much better than the rest of the world. If you feel otherwise then, as an American, you have the freedom to have a go elsewhere. Even Cuba (but don't come back). As for being egotistical, that is a good thing. Ego is what made America great. It drives people to do great things, to achieve. Without egomaniacal assholes the comforts of life as we know it wouldn't exist.

The very people with the What Would Jesus Do? Bumper Stickers are now the ones calling for the destruction of Afganistan. When in reality Jesus when attack let himself die on the cross when, according to your bible, he could've just commanded the vengance of God and destroyed the whole group of idiots

That is because he knew that by dying on the cross he would become a martyr. Martyrdom is a very powerful thing (obviously not as powerful as God but...). His death led countless millions down the path of enlightenment, guided by the religion that the his death helped create.

Hypocrisy. Following the WWJD lifestyle would mean we turn our cheek, take it on the chin, and continue to help and support those who attacked us.

It isn't hypocrisy, we can't all be martyrs. Some of us have to be soldiers.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

You wouldn't know Jesus... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Dexter Descarte on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 01:14:12 PM PST
... if he bit you on the ass.

So? Our system is so much better than the rest of the world. If you feel otherwise then, as an American, you have the freedom to have a go elsewhere. Even Cuba (but don't come back).

No you jingoistic twit, If an american feels otherwise then he has an unwavering duty to make his voice heard in protest and to do something about it. That is what freedom is about, not some exclusionary, crypto-fascist, 'love-it-or-leave-it', redneck line of shit.

As for being egotistical, that is a good thing. Ego is what made America great. It drives people to do great things, to achieve. Without egomaniacal assholes the comforts of life as we know it wouldn't exist.

Boy, you are about as deep as a rain puddle. Maybe you are so shallow that only your inflated sense of self compells you to get out of the sack every morning, but please don't project your inadaquacies onto the entirety of this great nation.

That is because he knew that by dying on the cross he would become a martyr. Martyrdom is a very powerful thing (obviously not as powerful as God but...). His death led countless millions down the path of enlightenment, guided by the religion that the his death helped create.

What you know about Jesus couldn't fill a sticky note. He didn't do it for so quaint an ideal as simple martyrdom, he did it in order to take upon himself the sins of mankind. You disparage the religion and the man by overly simplifieng his sacrifice (and I say this as an atheist).

It isn't hypocrisy, we can't all be martyrs. Some of us have to be soldiers.

Oh? And where, exactly, did Jesus say that? Ah yes the fine Christian tradition of not knowing a damn fool thing about your own religion. His message was pretty damn simple and it takes some serious disingenouity to mistake it: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. See, it's easy and soldiering doesn't fit the bill. People like you make people like me atheists.

"But sir, that is our holy mountain!"
"That's allright, that's our holy radio antenna."



Do not bend the bible to fit your pacifist views (none / 0) (#26)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 12:43:35 AM PST
If an american feels otherwise then he has an unwavering duty to make his voice heard in protest
You foolish misguided bastard, we are at war. The rules have changed. You either support the cause of you leave for Canada or Mexico, in the grand tradition of your beloved protestors.

You disparage the religion and the man by overly simplifieng his sacrifice (and I say this as an atheist).
Sacrificing yourself for the good of the group is the definition of a martyr. You disparage Christianity by living your life as an athiest and you will surely spend an eternity paying for the poor choice.

Oh? And where, exactly, did Jesus say that?
When God gave the law to the people of Israel through Moses in about 1500 BC, one of the laws was to do no work on the Sabbath. The Sabbath lasts from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. When a man was found picking up sticks on the Sabbath in Numbers 15:32-36, God commanded the people of Israel to put him to death by stoning. Oddly, I agree with your assertion that God wants us to 'do unto others as you would have done to you' and He proves that in the passage above. Do you think that He would feel differently because we as a society have supposedly moved to some new, more enlightened, state of consciousness? No. Do you think He would command the death of a man working on the Sabbath but not one who takes the lives of innocent children? No, He is a vengeful God and He expects everyone to live according to His rules. If you choose to sidestep that responsibility, far be it from me to try endless attempts at reform.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Yes, but Jesus initiated a New Covenant (none / 0) (#30)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 06:18:57 AM PST
and what He said superceded what was said in the Old Testament, when it conflicted. And since then, we have the infallible Popes to interpret any ambigous passages in the Bible, and reinterpret God's words to apply to modern situations (cf. birth control, ala baby killing).


A. Rightmann

birth control (none / 0) (#35)
by nathan on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 11:57:49 AM PST
The relevant sin, when using birth control devices that prevent the union of sperm and egg (like condoms, cervical caps, spermicides, and the Pill) isn't murder. Sperms and eggs don't have inherent rights to life; otherwise a woman would commit a mortal sin of omission every time she had her period. The sin is the denigration of the sovreignty of God.

Artificial birth control methods attempt to make it impossible for sex to lead to a baby. This is sinful, because it is a denial that all people come from God. If human life doesn't come from God, but only from mechanical actions (the union of sperm and egg,) then each person is not a special creation of God, but an excresence of the mechanical functioning of the universe - like the formation of sand from rocks, or the freezing of water into ice.

Human beings have a special relationship with God that must be respected.

Yours,
Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Possibly (none / 0) (#49)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:17:18 PM PST
Mr. Rightmann was referring to type of 'birth control' currently being peddled by Planned Parenthood under the auspices of preventing pregnancy after rape. (which is certainly no justification for killing a child)


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

 
Let us talk of barrier methods vs. implantation me (none / 0) (#59)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 06:29:15 AM PST
thods.

Barrier methods, the condom, the diaphram, the cervical cap, the tubal ligation, the vasectomy all aim to prevent the union of seed and egg, and thus are meddling in the creation of life, and a sin.

Implnation methods, aimed at preventing a fertilized egg, aka baby, from implanting into a mother's womb, such as the Pill and IUD, are murder.

Two different categories of birth control, both sinful, though one category is murder, and one is not.


A. Rightmann

that's more or less what I was (none / 0) (#60)
by nathan on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 02:15:30 PM PST
getting at, with a little more theology.

Cheers,
Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
You don't even know your own sect (none / 0) (#31)
by Dexter Descarte on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 08:24:21 AM PST
Do not bend the bible to fit your pacifist views

Are you Catholic? If not, and judging by your ignorance of your religion you are not, then my right to interpret the bible as I see fit is the very core of your protestant beliefs.

You foolish misguided bastard, we are at war. The rules have changed. You either support the cause of you leave for Canada or Mexico, in the grand tradition of your beloved protestors.

Ah yes, the first thing we have to do in order to preserve freedom (and the purity of essence of our precious bodily fluids of course) is destroy freedom. You fucking morons didn't learn a god damned thing in Vietnam did you? Hell no, we're killing Afghans in order to free them as we speak.

Sacrificing yourself for the good of the group is the definition of a martyr.

No, sacrificing yourself rather than renouncing your faith is the definition of a martyr. Sacrificing yourself for the benifit of the many is called utillitarianism.

See Mr. Rightman's post for a destruction of your last insanely heretical point. I disagree with him often, but at least he (as most Catholics do) has a firm grasp of his faith instead of the ignorant posturing that passes for religion that most American protestents display.


Thank you Mr. Descartes (none / 0) (#32)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 09:13:04 AM PST
Rest assured I will mention you in my prayers, in hope that your heresy may be remedied, or at the very least, you end up in Purgatory instead of Hell.

And how do we get educated Protestants to this board?


A. Rightmann

Thanks... I think (none / 0) (#33)
by Dexter Descarte on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 09:57:40 AM PST
I'm not a heritic, I'm an infidel... or maybe a heathen. Personally I prefer 'apostate', but unfortunately I've never believed so that one's out.

Are there any educated protestants any more? Fundamentalism has really destroyed the movement as it was originated by Luther. Perhaps in Europe they remain true to their creed, but here in the States people calling themselves Baptists have turned the reformation on it's head with their Biblical inerrency. What happened to the priesthood of the believer? I think they really need something like the catechisms that Catholics use to learn of their principles.

That's what I like about Catholicism, it's got a plan, an angle, a system that's been refined for going on two millenia now. Protestantism has just become Christianity Light... the Diet Coke of religion. You don't have to actually do good deeds (another thing I admire in Catholicism is the Creed of Good Works) anymore as long as you give lip service to Jesus.


 
At the risk of straying further off topic (none / 0) (#34)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 10:23:01 AM PST
then my right to interpret the bible as I see fit is the very core of your protestant beliefs.

I never took issue with your right to misinterpret the bible as you see fit. My only concern is that you are aware of, and willing to accept, the consequences the God metes out.

You fucking morons didn't learn a god damned thing in Vietnam did you?

I am not sure to whom you're 'you' refers. I wasn't there so I did not learn anything personally. If you mean America in general, yes, quite a bit was learned. As for destroying freedom: In times of conflict everyone must make some sacrifices for the common good.

See Mr. Rightman's post for a destruction of your last insanely heretical point

That hardly qualifies as a destruction, leaning on such precarious ground as the interpretations of the catholic popes. The bible, like the Constitution, is written in fairly simple language and is meant to be 'interpreted' quite directly. Far too many people read far too much into the passages and thus lose their way.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

300BPS (none / 0) (#43)
by Dexter Descarte on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:23:12 PM PST
I never took issue with your right to misinterpret the bible as you see fit.

Yes you did, you said "Do not bend the bible to fit your pacifist views". Hell I don't have to 'bend' it I just have to leave out all the stuff Jesus didn't say.

My only concern is that you are aware of, and willing to accept, the consequences the God metes out.

Are you ready to accept the consequences of being reborn as a slug if the Hindus turn out to be right?

If you mean America in general, yes, quite a bit was learned

*sigh* You don't even have the faintest clue what I'm talking about do you? It's simple; Promoting an ideology by supressing it will not work.

As for destroying freedom: In times of conflict everyone must make some sacrifices for the common good.

What the fuck are we fighting for? To preserve our freedom. Destroying it in order to do so is stupid. Yes moronic, dumb, brainless, and idiotic. Stunningly so.

The bible, like the Constitution, is written in fairly simple language and is meant to be 'interpreted' quite directly.

Don't give me this shit, I've actually read the things.

Far too many people read far too much into the passages and thus lose their way.

As opposed to what way? You are obviously a protestant, personal interpretation of the bible is the very core, base, fundamental tenet of your sect. If you want someone to interpret it for you there's a Pope and a gaggle of Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests perfectly willing to do so. If you want to simply follow the Old Testement I believe the Jews are accepting converts too.


"Sect" (none / 0) (#47)
by FreemoreJohnson on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:03:50 PM PST
You are obviously a protestant, personal interpretation of the bible is the very core, base, fundamental tenet of your sect.

I think your usage of the word "sect" here is technically correct. But it strikes me as odd. Isn't "sect" usually applied to smaller groups? After all any christian who is not a catholic is a protestant, right? That's a gigantic group to be called a sect.


typical (none / 0) (#50)
by nathan on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:41:13 PM PST
Most Protestants forget the Anglicans (who predate the Reformation, and broke with Rome for other reasons,) not to mention assorted Nestorians, Monophysites, and so forth. The Coptic and Syraic churches ought to be better publicized in the West. If Marco Polo is to be believed, the Near East was at one time crawling with Nestorians.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

I'm not exactly protestant, but, be that as it may (none / 0) (#53)
by FreemoreJohnson on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 03:08:50 PM PST
I'll respond to your assertion that I displayed a typically protestant ignorance.

I'm going to cut and paste from my New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. I wish I could afford the actual OED, but I cannot --> See my diary entry on shareware.

Protestant /"prQtIst(<schwa>)nt, in senses A.3, B.2 freq. pr<schwa>"tEst(<schwa>)nt/ n. & a. In senses A.4, B.2 also p-.

3 spec.a Orig., a member of the Anglican Church as opp. to a Nonconformist. Later, a member of the Anglican Church holding Low Church views (opp. Anglo- Catholic). E17.

I'm not exactly sure what they're getting at here, but apparently there are/were protestant anglicans too.

In fact, the dictionary gives a broader definition:
2 A member or follower of any of the Christian Churches or sects repudiating the Roman obedience at the Reformation or of any of the Churches or sects standing in historic continuity with them; a member or follower of any of the western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation. (Freq. opp. Roman Catholic.) M16.

Of course this leaves room for argument, but there always is.

As for the monophysites, whose definition
"A n. A person who holds that there is only one inseparable nature in the person of Jesus, contrary to a declaration of the council of Chalcedon (AD 451). L17."

reminds me of the arian sect... I would concur that you can't precisely call them "protestant."

Nevertheless, all this leaves my original point intact. There are an awful lot of Protestants to call them a "sect." Also, they may be a little to nebulous to be called a sect.


 
What? (none / 0) (#48)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:08:35 PM PST
Yes you did, you said "Do not bend the bible to fit your pacifist views".

Bending it to fit a particular view that you already hold and interpreting its passages in an attempt to determine how you should live your life are two completely different things. As an example: I read Mark 16:17-18 and interpret it to mean that if my faith remains strong I will be able to handle venemous serpents without fear of harm. If I were already some sort of snake farmer, and I sought out that passage to justify my occupation, then I would be bending the bible to fit my lifestyle.

Are you ready to accept the consequences of being reborn as a slug if the Hindus turn out to be right?

For the sake of argument, yes I am. In reality, the Hindu belief system is of little consequence for I know that I am following the true path.

What the fuck are we fighting for? To preserve our freedom. Destroying it in order to do so is stupid. Yes moronic, dumb, brainless, and idiotic. Stunningly so.

You seem to be taking an extreme stance here, no one wants to 'destroy' freedom, I wrote that there must be sacrifices. It is like undergoing treatment for cancer. It is inevitable that some healthy cells will die but in the long run the whole will be much better off.

Don't give me this shit, I've actually read the things.

And I haven't? If you have read the bible (or the Constitution) and you didn't understand them your mind must be terribly cluttered. Even a small child can understand them. Your writing seems to be coherent enough, I cannot imagine why you would have difficulty with either document. They are both very direct and meant to be understood according to their literal meaning. Both were written some time ago and may require a little vocabulary research but the basic meaning of the language hasn't changed all that much.

If you want someone to interpret it for you there's a Pope

I don't need anyone to interpret the bible for me, I have stated several times that is a simple read. The catholic pope has no more spiritual authority than any other man of the cloth. I respect the lengths to which the catholic church has gone to establish a structure for Christians, however skewed that structure may be, but I do not need a legion of men to tell me what I should think about

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" -Revelation 22:19
I already know what it means. It is obvious. It doesn't need to be so complicated.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

that's why we guarantee freedoms (none / 0) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 2nd, 2001 at 01:46:38 AM PST
You seem to be taking an extreme stance here, no one wants to 'destroy' freedom, I wrote that there must be sacrifices. It is like undergoing treatment for cancer. It is inevitable that some healthy cells will die but in the long run the whole will be much better off.

The Founding Fathers, in their great (but finite) wisdom knew that this sort of argument would come up. That's why our rights are guaranteed by the Constitution at all times ('cept when Lincoln says so). There's practically nothing in the Constitution that says that Americans are guaranteed their rights only when it is convenient. To the contrary, it is when it is most inconvenient that we must be guaranteed our rights. If life were wonderful and idyllic again (relatively), we would not need to have a sacred document reminding us of the basic principles of our nation; few people would feel the need to stifle others (ok, so I'm being optimistic here, but it would certainly be a more accepting climate than we have now). That document is there to remind us of what we stand for when we are most likely to forget, namely a situation like this where it is convenient to ignore personal liberties. I feel the most patriotic thing to do right now is to burn a flag to assert that you can. Self-censorship isn't any better than imposed censorship (there's a quote from some court decision that says it better). What was done to Bill Maher was terrible*. Now is the most important time for you to assert your rights. Nothing would be more American now than to reaffirm that our rights are not a matter of convenience, nor contingent on government and popular approval. Being American isn't about blindly supporting the government; it's the exact opposite.

* not that I agree with him; look here for an interview that convinced me that Bill Maher was wrong. But, for the most part, nobody ever constructively criticized what he said; instead they were appalled and outraged that he dared say something so contradictory to what everyone else thought. Ari Fleischer (White House spokesman said:
It's a terrible thing to say, and it's unfortunate," Fleischer said."There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

That is very disturbing to me, the fact that a high-ranking governmental official (the voice of the President, in fact) would state publicly that Americans should censor themselves. The furthest he should have gone would have been to say that the White House strongly disliked and disagreed with Maher's statement. But they should have stopped short of advocating Bill Maher's restraint. You don't eliminate ideas by banishing them; you let them out into the light and construct an argument stating why it was wrong. The fact that Maher was forced to retract his statements destroyed an opportunity for dialogue on our merits vs. the terrorists' that would have (hopefully) resulted in the United States doing a better job of taking the high road henceforth in order to more clearly demonstrate the deep difference between terrorists and ourselves. Unless you're afraid there is no difference, in which case our problems are way bigger than some late night talk show host running his mouth off.

** Bill Maher's actual statement:
"We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly."



previous comment attribute (none / 0) (#65)
by ketan on Fri Nov 2nd, 2001 at 01:48:00 AM PST
I posted the above comment, but didn't notice I typed in the wrong password.


 
Dear GOD........... (none / 0) (#55)
by TopCat on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 07:37:57 PM PST
<B>As for destroying freedom: In times of conflict everyone must make some sacrifices for the common good.</B>

That doesn't sound much like the 'democracy' of America I know..........it almost sounds *gasp* communistic!

Interesting. Amazing how certain freedoms (read: ALL) are rubbery when the parameters of a situation change. This is a little in opposition to what your founding fathers intended when they wrote that little document called The Constitution isn't it?


 
Brilliant (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 12:54:46 PM PST
Basing moral and theological arguments on a Kevin Smith movie. That's deep. Allow me to make another ridiculous, incendiary statement, when I say that anyone who makes such claims based on bad movies deserves to be killed.


 
very minor correction (none / 0) (#16)
by nathan on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 05:58:04 AM PST
The Maltese language is Semitic in origin, but its roots are in Phoenician, not Arabic. It was somewhat Arabized from the ninth to the twelfth century, CE, but since then its mains influences have been Italian and, later, English. The Maltese themselves are not Arabs, although they are mostly Semites.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Oh, Great. (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 12:52:08 PM PST
Another naive fool decides he's going to show his disdain for the greatest power of the Western world, by stereotyping to the point of absurdity all Americans, and making inane, unfounded statements. Does it ever strike people like him that it may be a bit ironic, that he condemns ALL Americans as lazy, beer-swilling, immigrant-hating, and most of all, racist and stereotyping slobs? Or perhaps the ironic part is his equally insane repudiation of mainstream sources of news like CNN and Reuters, but in the same breath proclaims some page hosted on Geocities to be a bastion of truth? Writing an article like this is far easier than actually having a discussion with some sort of merit, where you have to defend your position, I suppose.


 
Damn straight (none / 0) (#24)
by John Milton on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 02:55:37 PM PST
Don't forget watching for subversives. You must watch all of your neighbors for signs of suspicious activity. Even friends and family members should be watched. Islam knows no age or race. As the worlds only democracy, we carry a special burden. If our nation falls, the world will slip back into totalitarianism and Islamic fundamentalism.


-John Milton

 
12 steps to proving how clever I am! (none / 0) (#51)
by gildenstern on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:45:33 PM PST
1. Policy? I don't need any stinking policy! My job is to denounce! I have no idea how to respond to terror -- except I'm certain that whatever the majority supports is wrong, because that's what gives me the chance to show off my smarts!

2. Irony is my sword! When I say things with irony, they are unquestionably so! You can tell when I'm using irony because I use an exclamation point! Think of the exclamation point as your Guidepost to Irony!

3. Attack positions no one espouses: "It is wrong to indiscriminately kill American Arabs/Moslems/Sikhs, even though the U.S. Government endorses exactly that!" I am so brave for taking on the powerful pro-indiscrimiate-killing lobby! Sure, sure, I know Bush bends over backwards to say the opposite, but I am so much more courageous if I pretend he didn't!

4. Project my own beliefs on the actions of others, no matter what they say. Sure, many people of various political views say they fly the flag or sing "God Bless America" to express their feeling of communal pain or resolve, but I will project the most sinister of motives because it makes me look even more brave for opposing them!

5. Tie everything back to my own agenda. Never mind the terrorists' stated agenda (U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, humanitarian aid in Somalia, containment of Iraq) -- certainly it must be the same as mine, because that gives me the chance to say "I told you so" -- see how clever that makes me? So, I say it is the excesses of Wall Street that caused this attack, and I say it's about time!

6. Accuse everyone of a profit motive. I don't care whether they're donating all of the "profit" to charity. Pointing out the Tacky makes me look petty, so instead let's pretend it's Greed.

7. Blame the media. All those polls and interviews are so annoying -- they must be part of the problem somehow.

8. Level the moral playing field. The terrorists (actually, I prefer the term "activists") were right to target evil, capitalist civilians; but the U.S. is The Evil Empire� for accidentally killing civilians when targeting the military. This leads nicely into...

9. There are no accidents! Each Afgan civilian killed and each suspect detained who is cleared were targeted deliberately. Don't let anyone tell you differently -- that would make me less courageous & rebellious for standing up to this Evil Conspiracy!

10. Berate the majority for labeling the opposition, while callously lumping them together in return. Don't tell me that most people were appalled at the sale of WTC rubble -- I need to lay that one at the feet of the majority! All who support the war on terrorism also traffic in WTC rubble! Say it loud, say it proud!

11. Always lay the blame on the U.S. There's no glory in holding foreign murderers accountable for their actions! It demonstrates great intelligence (and did I mention courage?) to deduct that such attacks are a "natural consequence" of [insert fashionable pseudo-German term here] imperialist, colonialist, capitalist, globalist, expansionist, un-hipist, attitudes of the West. You see, you can't hold these people responsible -- they're like children or animals who only respond to what we adults do. Oops! Did I say that out loud? That's supposed to be an unstated assumption... I'm gonna blow my liberal credentials if I'm not careful...

12. Use snappy numbered lists! Hey, I got this idea from Cosmo & Men's Health, and it works great! Bite-sized quips, easily digested, with no careful analysis that might expose the folly of my arguments or -- God forbid -- diminish my obvious wit!




Too hip for the room (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 09:38:26 PM PST
With a few definite exceptions, the floor workers of this diatribe mill are not prepared to do much more than this. These are the same who went through their courses in political science on borrowed tests and drank coffee with the reader's editions of Nietzsche and Marx...with absolutely no wear on any pages past the twentieth. I'm not saying that some of their points lack merit, but not because they invested that merit themselves.

Continue to kick ass.


 
United States is Terrorist from CNN (none / 0) (#67)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 3rd, 2001 at 03:52:41 AM PST
terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

"Any nation that supports, terrorism will share the fate of terrorists." - George Bush

When the United States says it will bomb or attack a nation, because said nation is known to support terrorism then the United States' threat is a terrorist action. The United States is a terrorist nation, no strong argument can be made against this. For the United States to stop terrorism, as our politicians claim they want to in their rhetoric, they would have to refrain from bombing nations such as Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, etc., and avoid even threatening nations for political reasons. They could do so, but it would be extremely difficult for them.

When so many people use the word terrorism incorrectly(as is happening in lieu of the bombings), it is easy to not know the real meaning of the word. In context the mass media is using it people with little power who use or threaten violence are terrorists. An entity with power such as the United States the way they are using the word is not considered a terrorist, yet none of the media caught this. Might does not make right, though.

Many modern nations were founded by men who once considered terrorists. George Washington when he used force to try to expunge British rule from America as general, was called by the British a terrorist. They were correct in calling him a terrorist, I might add. The word terrorist was borrowed from French. The bourgeoisie revolutionaires in France who carried out the Reign of Terror against the aristocracy of France, were dubbed ' terroriste", by the aristocracy. Those once terrorists in France are now celebrated as heroes, like George Washington now is in the United States, now that they can claim the legitamcy of a government. Most of humanity does not have a problem with the use of violence, they have a problem when violence is used by a non status quo power. When Osma bin Laden uses violence/terrorism most of the Western world can recognize it is wrong, when the United States uses violence/terrorism they can not see it is wrong. Only when we can recognize both forms of terrorism can terrorism be reduced.

Haralambopolous Papadapolous -CNN


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.