Coming to you from one of the most racial strife-filled cities of the late 60's and early 70's, and just down the road from where MLK was shot, I can tell you that MLK marched into the face of vitriolic opposition and certain danger by coming here when he did. No matter how awry the black leadership have gone since then, their cause was a just one at that time, and lead to new civil rights legislation and desegregation.
There has been extremely significant inter-racial healing since that time. There is not universal support for shutting government offices and taking off work for MLK Day. But there is an acknowledgement that recognizing MLK Day is a continued part of that healing process. Blacks in general at the time were so bereft of education and socio-economic advancement here that they also suffered a crisis of identity. I don't pretend to be a psychologist, but it appears that rallying around MLK Day allows them a hero that helps them have a sense of pride that spills over into their everday accomplishments. You can be as logical as you want about it, but what little boy or girl doesn't need a hero to make them feel proud about who they are. And which of our heros were perfect humans?
"Certainly not a racist Marxist terrorist like Mandela."
How do you figure that Mandela is a "racist Marxist terrorist"? If you can provide quotes or something I would appreciate it, if not then you are at the same level of maturity as this demented old asswipe.
Batman, "You can be as logical as you want about it, but what little boy or girl doesn't need a hero to make them feel proud about who they are."
Who exactly is "they"? American? Human? Or do you want people identifying themselves by the colour of their skin? You expect that to cause healing? Sounds like a recipe for permanent division to me.
BTW, I said I agreed with equal rights for blacks. No point telling me that things were wrong back then. I didn't disagree.
"And which of our heros were perfect humans?"
Sure. But make it clear whenever you hold someone up that they were full of flaws, some extremely serious like being a racist selfish sociopath.
nonadas, "How do you figure that Mandela is a "racist Marxist terrorist"?"
Which bit do you dispute?
racist - not caring about the human rights of white Zimbabweans, or Iraqis etc. Railing against America for unspecified crimes instead of Saddam for a holocaust. Not being very careful about allowing incompetent blacks taking over from competent whites like happened in every other African country. Not caring about dictatorship in other African countries so long as the leader was black. Not acknowledging that "dictatorship of whites" in South Africa was a hell of a lot better (constraints on abuse of power) than dictatorship of one goon in the various African dictatorships, or the communists in the Soviet Union etc. That sort of thing tends to give the game away.
Marxist - read this.
terrorist - I can go and pull up the pictures of some of the victims of his terrorism if you want, if you dispute that. You could try a google search the same as I found them the first time.
"If you can provide quotes or something I would appreciate it, if not then you are at the same level of maturity as this demented old asswipe."
And perhaps if you wait for my response to your request for additional information instead of making preemptive judgements yourself, you would come across as less of an arsewipe yourself.
Batman, "There has been extremely significant inter-racial healing since that time."
BTW, how's that healing going along of the ridiculous amount of black on white crime that blacks never acknowledge or condemn or seek to rectify? Some "healing". What I see is prominent blacks covering for black criminals. Rioting in favour of a known criminal like Rodney King or supporting a probable murderer like that rich black guy (sports hero/actor?), can't remember his name, just because of the colour of their skin. Some "healing". The problem emanating from blacks is not even on the table to be addressed. Just as the problem of racism and religious bigotry from the Middle East wasn't on the table until THANKFULLY Osama put it there so we can begin to work the problem (and solve that, and you'll almost certainly solve the black problem too).
Paul, o KING OF CONTRADICTION, I answered your bigoted comment lambasting King under your last post, but since you're pontificating further, I guess you want to keep the subject open.
Well, let's examine YOUR heroes first.
Please explain wolfowitz's attempt to free Arabs. He was an asshole of a lying undersecretary of defense, then took over the world bank, a predatory lending institution that would make the sub-prime lenders here who are helping send us to a recession awestruck. While there, wolfowitz promoted and overpaid his girlfriend, demoralizing and just pissing off the rest of the staff at the wb.
bush doesn't seek to liberate anyone, just look at Gaza, the West Bank, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Objectively, not through the lens that rupert murdoch gives you. bush let osama bin-laden get away twice, and worked with the taliban to try to secure gas and oil pipeline routes. After it was determined that the taliban were too unreliable, we switched to the northern alliance rapists, who must have understood that the US was coming in and taking what it wants, so it might benefit them to help out, or not stand in the way at least. Check where the pipelines are planned and see if the US bases aren't along their route.
Last year bush said something like "the Iraqis need to make progress, they need to pass the oil law," maybe you remember the debate on this when Critical One Third mopped up the floor with you. Now they are using ethnic cleansing as a method to bring stability to Iraq, making three countries basically so they can finally get control of that precious oil. Everyone knows dick cheney's secret energy task force meeting had Iraq divided up into oil fiefdoms, basically, with different multinationals controling the oil in different sections of the country. Unfortunately for your heroes, the parliament doesn't seem to want to turn it's nation's resources over to vultures, I'm sure there's a lot of pressure on them from crocker and other US officials to get in line. Hopefully they'll continue their stand.
Now, your attack on King, whether you want to admit it or not, is merely because he's 1. Considered to be on the liberal/democrat side, which you are adamantly opposed to. 2. You claim he should have been concerned in bringing more benefits to non blacks, and not worry about blacks only. Well, I explained that he did in fact try to include poor whites and native Americans. Whether he succeeded or not, I don't now. But with his own people being by far the most discriminated against, at least in areas where they had a substantial population such as the south and northern cities, was he supposed to abandon them for people with less severe problems? Only in your bizarre twisted world.
Why do you even discuss King when he supposedly lived before the world was formed but, in your view, was merely a computer simulation awaiting your grand entrance? Because, either you don't believe your own garbage, or you are, as I submit, the KING OF CONTRADICTION.
And as far as the Vietnam war, it wasn't to free anyone, and the tet offensive was a hoax.
buh, "Paul, o KING OF CONTRADICTION"
No buh, you have never found a single contradiction. All you have ever done is invent fantasies.
"I answered your bigoted comment"
You don't realise that you are the bigot, buh.
"Please explain wolfowitz's attempt to free Arabs."
Simple, he believes everyone has the right to live under a liberal democracy, the same as he does. He's not a selfish prick like you, buh. I'm not going to bother responding to your fantasies about Wolfowitz causing sub-prime mayhem etc etc.
"bush doesn't seek to liberate anyone, just look at Gaza, the West Bank, Afghanistan, and Iraq."
Gaza will not be liberated from the Hamas terrorists because that's what the people of Gaza actually want. It will take some time to get there.
The West Bank will not be liberated from the Fatah terrorists, because that's what the people in the West Bank actually want. It will take some time to get there.
Afghanistan and Iraq are already liberated. They're not up to western standards, but they do have a semblance of freedom of speech, especially political speech, and they most certainly have freedom to start parties to compete for elections. So do the people of the West Bank in fact. Not sure about Gaza anymore. You would be better concentrating your concerns on somewhere like North Korea, where only one party is allowed. But of course, that would require a degree of honesty, something which would contradict your comfortable fantasy world.
"Objectively, not through the lens that rupert murdoch gives you."
Pathetic attempt at ad hominem just demonstrating that you lose yet again. I rarely watch TV at all, buh. I get my news from the BBC News website, you know, left-wing. I just ignore the spin. I like the format.
"bush let osama bin-laden get away twice"
Not sure how you reckon that. His Afghan allies POSSIBLY allowed him to escape into Pakistan ONCE. Regardless, freeing 25 million Afghans was FAR more important than catching Osama. And we wanted the Afghans to demonstrably free themselves, rather than just have freedom handed to them on a plate by honkeys.
"and worked with the taliban to try to secure gas and oil pipeline routes."
Rubbish. Bush hadn't even been elected when that PRIVATE consortium was TALKING about doing that.
"After it was determined that the taliban were too unreliable, we switched to the northern alliance rapists"
It must be fun in your "brain" making this crap up as you go along. There was always a desire for the Northern Alliance to win because they weren't fundamentalist nutcases like the Taliban. It was 9/11 that prompted the US to get behind the Northern Alliance in a semi-serious manner. I say semi-serious, because they didn't want a new dictatorship, nor a new civil war, with a prick like Rabbani in charge. The Northern Alliance is actually disbanded now, buh. Time to update your fantasy world to add yet another fantasy to the mix to explain that
(rather than totally revamp your sick worldview).
"who must have understood that the US was coming in and taking what it wants"
The US came in bringing aid. It didn't take a damn thing except casualties for other people's freedom.
"Check where the pipelines are planned and see if the US bases aren't along their route."
What a crock of shit. The biggest base is actually Bagram. You may as well say that America is trying to become communist, so is emulating the Soviet Union by occupying the base that the USSR used to occupy. Also, all of this is actually temporary. When the ANA is ready and the US pulls out (same as it pulled out of say the Philippines), let me guess - rather than reevaluate your worldview and say "well, it looks like the American government did exactly like it said it was going to do all along, I really stuffed that one up", you're going to add a new fantasy to explain the lack of Americans, right? ie that there were more important gas lines in (the next country) that forced the US to abandon Afghanistan. Right, buh? Yes, buh, that's you to a T.
"Last year bush said something like "the Iraqis need to make progress, they need to pass the oil law,""
Yes, buh, the US government wants the Sunnis to get a cut of the oil so that they can make political progress and vamoose. There's nothing sinister about that except in your twisted mind.
"maybe you remember the debate on this when Critical One Third mopped up the floor with you."
buh, the only place where you lefties ever "mop the floor" with me is in your pathetic fantasy worlds. In the real world, I win every time, as you resort to logical fallacies and complete fantasies to prop up your ridiculous positions.
"Now they are using ethnic cleansing as a method to bring stability to Iraq, making three countries basically so they can finally get control of that precious oil."
Again with a complete fantasy. The US isn't ethnically cleansing anyone. Various people are returning to areas where OTHERS had forced them out. As the Iraqi government forces increase in strength, the militias who do that sort of cleansing are being eliminated.
"Everyone knows dick cheney's secret energy task force meeting had Iraq divided up into oil fiefdoms"
It's a secret, yet everyone knows? Only in your fantasy world are such things possible.
"basically, with different multinationals controling the oil in different sections of the country."
Last I looked the oil was pumped according to the wishes of the democratically-elected government. The only reason you are obsessed with oil (or gas pipelines) is because YOU would never do something for someone else unless there was something in it for you. You then project your own mercenary attitude onto Republicans.
"Unfortunately for your heroes, the parliament doesn't seem to want to turn it's nation's resources over to vultures"
Can you please reconcile this statement with the one from ot
other lefties about Iraq's government being puppets controlled by the US government? It would be nice seeing you loonies debate each other for a change (and possibly arrive at a conclusion that it was the space aliens who are ultimately responsible) rather than waste the time of sensible people on the right?
"I'm sure there's a lot of pressure on them from crocker and other US officials to get in line. Hopefully they'll continue their stand."
I'm sure they, like Bush, will continue to do whatever their space alien masters tell them to do.
"Now, your attack on King"
Or perhaps my response to King's attack on the people trying to free Vietnam.
"whether you want to admit it or not"
Translated - Paul's opinion doesn't make sense in my fantasy world, so no problem, I'll just subsitute his often-stated opinion with one I just made up myself. That should allow me to win! I'm sure no-one will notice.
"is merely because he's 1. Considered to be on the liberal/democrat side, which you are adamantly opposed to."
Actually, buh, I am a neocon. I actually believe in social security, abortion, things that are traditionally left. Whenever I do those "political position" things I'm normally in the centre. However, when you're an insane lefty, like you are, everyone to the right of Stalin appears to be a "Fox News plant". It is specific things from the left that I will attack. E.g. not appreciating what the rich are giving them and demanding more, or interfering with market forces to run a short-term scam, or not caring about human rights of others.
"2. You claim he should have been concerned in bringing more benefits to non blacks, and not worry about blacks only. Well, I explained that he did in fact try to include poor whites and native Americans."
Those are not the words I used. I just said that it's not that noble fighting for your own race as it is for others, and when it came to the crunch, he harmed the Vietnamese because they were just "yellow scum" to him.
"Whether he succeeded or not, I don't now. But with his own people being by far the most discriminated against"
This is the whole problem with you buh, and it shows your racism. You like to say "his own people", excluding him from your own race. Just like you excluded the poor Arabs under Saddam. They're only useful to you as tools for your political objectives.
"at least in areas where they had a substantial population such as the south and northern cities, was he supposed to abandon them for people with less severe problems?"
No Buh. I've already explained that I support equality for blacks or anyone else. I'm just saying it's not that noble when he's one of the beneficiaries, and that when it came to yellow scum, he proved what a racist he was. And copyrighting his work showed his mercenary side.
"Only in your bizarre twisted world."
It's you that lives in a bizarre twisted world, buh. You can't see that, b
but that's why you think others do, when all they're doing is describing reality.
"Why do you even discuss King when he supposedly lived before the world was formed but, in your view, was merely a computer simulation awaiting your grand entrance?"
He was there in 1967, buh. Besides which, that's just the MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION for the universe, it's not written in stone. And regardless, even if it is fabricated, it is being used as part of history. And as such, the lessons learned are relevant today. As such, you need to learn those lessons, and explain the failings of a racist sociopath. This applies to all things too. Even if the entire evolutionary history is completely fabricated, which it almost certainly is, you should act as if it were true, because that is where you will find solutions to today's problems.
"Because, either you don't believe your own garbage, or you are, as I submit, the KING OF CONTRADICTION."
No buh. You just lack the intellect to understand that there is no contradiction.
"And as far as the Vietnam war, it wasn't to free anyone, and the tet offensive was a hoax."
Wrong buh. The Vietnam was was to make the South Vietnamese people freer than they would be under North Vietnamese dictatorship AND protect the free world, and the only hoax about Tet was idiots in the west claiming that it was a communist victory instead of the complete and utter disaster it was for them.
Don't you just LOVE it when people who seemed to support Paul's views suddenly realise what a twisted psychotic lunatic (and twice locked up for it) he is and start attacking him too!
Paul
Surprise surprise! You are the author of yet another delicious irony. You complain about Martin Luther King copyrighting his speeches (why on earth should he not, if he wants to?), yet complete miss the point that Wolfowitz (whom you admire so much) just happened to be appointed Head of the World Bank, after leaving Bush's administration. If you are to be consistent about people making money out of their jobs, how come we don't see you complaining about the cronyism which got Wolfowitz his job?
In any case - and quite rightly too - Wolfowitz had to leave after a short while for breaching the Bank's ethics rules). What a fine upstanding character he has proved himself to be. And if you want more proof, read about his time as US Ambassador to Indonesia, and see how much he tried to do for human rights and democracy there during his tenure.
Foddy, "Don't you just LOVE it when people who seemed to support Paul's views suddenly realise what a twisted psychotic lunatic (and twice locked up for it) he is and start attacking him too!"
Foddy, don't you just love it when you have to quickly resort to ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies when you don't have a leg to stand on? You lose before you've even started.
"Surprise surprise! You are the author of yet another delicious irony."
No Foddy. You're just too stupid to understand, as usual.
"You complain about Martin Luther King copyrighting his speeches (why on earth should he not, if he wants to?)"
It's not really a complaint. Of course he is well within his rights to copyright his work and make money from it, instead of making it public domain like I do with my software. However, just point out that this is a mercenary, not a hero, and there's no problem.
"yet complete miss the point that Wolfowitz (whom you admire so much) just happened to be appointed Head of the World Bank, after leaving Bush's administration."
People with high public profile tend to get jobs like that. They don't go to your next-door neighbour. People like Tiger Woods get paid heaps for wearing hats too. If you don't like our political system, vote for someone different.
"If you are to be consistent about people making money out of their jobs"
I am consistent, Foddy. If King just said "my job is making money out of speeches designed to scam money out of white folk for use by blacks and to hell with the yellow scum of Vietnam", I wouldn't have such a problem. I'd still have a problem with him, but it's the hero status that is difficult to swallow. Again, Wolfowitz is far better.
"how come we don't see you complaining about the cronyism which got Wolfowitz his job?"
For the same reason I've never complained about Tiger Woods getting his. That's just the free market at work.
"read about his time as US Ambassador to Indonesia, and see how much he tried to do for human rights and democracy there during his tenure."
Would that be when he was protecting the free world from the threat of communism? Sounds like he has his priorities right to me. Unlike King.
So let's have another go. Martin Luther King was an opportunist who figured out how to make money out of the civil rights movement, while simultanenously scamming other people's money (mainly white people) for use for his race, so that he could get some benefit, while simultaneously throwing yellow people's rights to the dogs, as it was interfering with his scam, and instead of promoting a wealth-generating system like capitalism which would actually allow people to get out of poverty, he instead gave comfort to communism, which benifitted no-one except a few dictators and their family.
And this is what America trumps as a hero?
And they wonder why they have problems, including severe racial problems?
Good grief.
BTW, OJ Simpson is the guy who I was referring to earlier as a probable murderer. It's a pity that I don't know of a better system of justice to solve problems like that.
Paul,
"It's not really a complaint. Of course he is well within his rights to copyright his work and make money from it, instead of making it public domain like I do with my software. However, just point out that this is a mercenary, not a hero, and there's no problem."
He was mainly concerned about making money for his family's future, and that concern was well grounded, if you recall what happened to him. He was not around to provide for them.
Why on earth do you make the stupid false dichotomy between mercenary or hero? Your hero Churchill made a fair bit of money out of writing; do you regard him as a mercenary too? How strange that you still accuse others of false argumentative techniques, yet resort to them yourself. Is it because you don't think we will notice?
And your comments about King and Vietnam are just plain silly. King opposed the war in Vietnam, as, eventually, did the majority of Americans. Rather like the Pope opposed the invasion of Iraq, just like the majority of Eurpopeans, Australians, Canadians and Americans now do. Just because you feel different doesn't make King or the Pope wrong.
Paul,
Good job arguing with buh. He is so stupid I'm beginning to think he is a neocon agent trying to destroy the opposition from within by going undercover as a far-left anti-American, reality denying, emotionaly crippled, lying, delusional, idiotic dickhead. 
This demented dickhead tells you to look at things objectively when in the same post he writes some conspiracy bullsh1t about the US using ethnic cleansing to "bring stability" and divide Iraq to get oil. What? We haven't stolen any oil, you pathetic piece of sh1t. Stop lying you deranged, delusional 9-11 denying, closet Muslim conspiracy nut.
Buh is a fn headcase or a plant or something.
"Don't you just LOVE it when people who seemed to support Paul's views suddenly realise what a twisted psychotic lunatic he is and start attacking him too!"
Then Foddy sais this. First of all, I'm not attacking Paul. I have said all along that the God delusion is crap. But the people on this blog make him look perfectly sane.
By the way, when are you going to stop supporting buh's sick views and realise what a psychotic lunatic he is and attack him? Probably because you are too, and don't want to contradict your boyfriend. Your a fn hypocrite.
BTW, Paul. Thanks for clarifying about Nelson Mandela. I don't have any desire to defend one of buhddy's immature probable heros so thanks. And now I will sum up my post by saying:
What a waste of humanity.
By the way Paul,
It's a shame you can't add smilies for these comments. This blog just NEEDS this one.
http://thumbsnap.com/images/KWFUmu3X.gif
U jut dunt wanna admit buh & foddy is rite cuz u hav bin defeatit every time by him & hes rite. Ur a stoopid repub n4z1.
BTW, gud goin buh & foddy. U debunk em. finaly sum1 who agees w/me! :D
nonadas
Hey, let's get some smilies! They would be quite suitable for your childish level of debate. This is quite typical of your lack of understanding of the big picture:
"What? We haven't stolen any oil, you pathetic piece of sh1t."
The war was never about "stealing oil"; to the extent it was about oil, it was about being able to control (or at least greatly influence) what was done with the oil. Saddam could have sold the oil wherever he liked. Now the Iraqi government will not sell it where the US doesn't like.
Paul
"First of all, the struggle for racial equality is something I totally support. If I had been around at that time, I would have been equally outraged at any laws or social bigotry against blacks (or any other race). However, if I were a black myself, and had a personal benefit in getting those changes, then it's not really noble. It's just getting something for yourself."
You really have to laugh at crap like this! In other words, people who are oppressed have to sit around and wait until someone else takes action to help them. It's not noble to try to help yourself. What a load of complete and utter nonsense. Does this apply not only to racist oppression? What about citizens being oppressed by their government? For example, would it be noble for Iranians to rebel against Ahmadinejad? They would be getting something for themselves by getting rid of him, so will they have to wait until someone from outside - with no personal agenda, of course - does something to help them?
That's what I thought I said too, Foddy.
Gee, nonadas, I thought you were starting to be civil. Now it's shonet, fin moron and all of your other code talk, so take cheney's profane advice to Patrick Leahy that he was discrete enough to say when the senate was in session, I believe, back in 2004. You and paul are the stupid, deluded one's, believing everything you hear from liars like bush, cheny, and wolfowitz (him), and looking ony for bad from an entire religion so you can justify your sadistic desire to "kill muscaums" (you.)
Nothing I wrote was made up by me, and I get news from a variety of sources. I used to think carter and clinton were good presidents, but after seeing their careers through several more independent lenses, it's pretty obvious that they were basically working towards the same ends as the republicans, and unfortunately hillary or obama will probably be the same, though I would prefer them over all repubs except ron paul.
paul, bush says we could be in Iraq for decades.
paul, a man was sentenced in Afghanistan, to death, I think, because he insulted Islam, without getting a fair trial. Just like we do here in the US (Jose Padilla.)
paul, you are the KING OF CONTRADICTION, and a flagship reason is that on 1-13 in a haloscan comment you said that the halocaust was not real, but part of a computer simulation, then told that to a jewish neighbor! Being god doesn't cure you of asshole-ism, huh.
Then, then, on 1-19, you talk about whether or not the Germans gassed the Jews democratically or not....
I call that high contradiction!
I've come up with part of a song called "King of Contradiction."
If one commenter here at A-S would like to hear it, I will finish the song and print it here, with (hopefully) a link to the original song that I took the music from.
buh,
Sorry - I didn't have time to read all the comments here. Clearly great minds think alike!
Without wishing to be thought "anti-American" in any way, I just came across the following interesting comments (from the excellent website of Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan):
"I think we underestimate how different and dangerous the US now is. Last year I delivered a talk on Central Asia at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. As I sat preparing my lecture, I had the television on low in my hotel room because I don't like complete silence. Gradually I found myself listening intently to an evangelical preacher, telling his TV congregation that they should not worry about casualties in Iraq because the Bible showed us that there had to be a great and bloody conflict in the Middle East before the Second Coming of Christ. So the more people who died in these wars, the closer we are to Jesus.
Now that message would be acceptable to very few people in the UK - just Tony Blair and his immediate friends, really. I related this astonishing thing I had heard to some American lecturers over lunch. They told me that at least a third of their students would believe this stuff. And this was Ann Arbor, not the Deep South. It is essential that we all wake up now to the fact that the US is a deeply disturbed and psychotic society, and by far the biggest danger to world peace."
Another excellent anaylysis by Brian Barder (another former British Ambassador) here, from which an extract:
"It's sad because it's another example of the steadily widening gulf between the political culture in the US and that in the rest of the west, exemplified by the Iraq war (leaving aside, if possible, the UK's culpable complicity in it), the so-called "war on terror" and its implications for civil liberties, extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay, the role of religion, attitudes to capital punishment and the treatment of prisoners, demonstrative patriotism, and now the role of the US sub-prime market in bringing about the impending recession which will engulf the rest of us as well as the United States. Alas, it's no longer the case that the rest of the civilised world looks to the US as its moral and political leader. And I fear that the causes of this ever-widening gulf go much deeper than just the consequences of the catastrophic presidency of G W Bush: whoever succeeds him will not be able to build a durable bridge across it. Many of us small-L liberals used to feel that we had more in common with our American cousins than with our historical enemies just across the English Channel, the French and the Germans, and even our slightly more distant historical friends, the Scandinavians and the Dutch. I don't think that's true any more."
I guess my hopes for change of guard in Iran have been dashed. I read that every potential reformer has again been vetted and prohibited from standing in the upcoming elections. Most of the candidates, in fact.
Foddy, Where do you find such bullshit things to quote? I live in the heart of the South, surrounded by evangelical Christians, and I don't know anyone as bizarre as the caricature you attempt to create.
Batman
Your wish is my command:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
And if you check polls, you will find a huge number of Americans believe that the Bible is historically accurate.
"In the NEWSWEEK poll, 93 percent of Americans say they believe Jesus Christ actually lived and 82 percent believe Jesus Christ was God or the Son of God. Fifty-two percent of all those polled believe, as the Bible proclaims, that Jesus will return to earth someday; 21 percent do not believe it. Fifteen percent believe Jesus will return in their lifetime; 47 percent do not, the poll shows."
With figures like this (52% believing that Jesus will return to earth and 15% believing it will happen in their lifetimes!), it's not hard to accept what the lecturers told Murray.
Since large numbers of these people think that the world is only 6,000 years old, what on earth (no pun intended) do these people think of scientists the world over who are constantly making discoveries about the history of the planet. Is anyone who makes a discovery of something over 6,000 years old part of a massive conspiracy to discredit Christianity?
Batman
Craig Murray is also author of the excellent book "Murder in Samarkand", which details his experiences as Ambassador in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan, you may recall, was part of the Coalition of the Willing, which led the US to conveniently overlook its appalling human rights record. Murray, on the other hand, did not.
I thoroughly recommend the book. If you can wait, a film based on it is under development, to be directed by the excellent Michael Winterbottom.
Foddy, "He was mainly concerned about making money for his family's future, and that concern was well grounded, if you recall what happened to him. He was not around to provide for them."
Sure. I don't begrudge the man a living. This is capitalism, and he is a capitalist. Pity he didn't bestow the same rights to the Vietnamese.
"Why on earth do you make the stupid false dichotomy between mercenary or hero?"
I don't. I just don't like people like King or Mother Theresa or Saddam being paraded as perfect people we should follow.
"Your hero Churchill made a fair bit of money out of writing; do you regard him as a mercenary too?"
He's my hero? I agree with him on a lot of points. And, like King, I don't begrudge him making money from writing.
"How strange that you still accuse others of false argumentative techniques, yet resort to them yourself."
No I haven't, Foddy.
"Is it because you don't think we will notice?"
No Foddy. It's because except in your fantasy world, I don't.
"And your comments about King and Vietnam are just plain silly."
No they're not, Foddy. You are. As always.
"King opposed the war in Vietnam, as, eventually, did the majority of Americans."
Just as the majority of Germans supported Hitler.
"Rather like the Pope opposed the invasion of Iraq"
Exactly like that in fact.
"just like the majority of Eurpopeans, Australians, Canadians and Americans now do."
Yes, Foddy. Just like the Germans supported Hitler.
"Just because you feel different doesn't make King or the Pope wrong."
No Foddy. Objective morality does that.
"to the extent it was about oil, it was about being able to control (or at least greatly influence) what was done with the oil."
No it wasn't, Foddy.
"Saddam could have sold the oil wherever he liked."
And he was welcome to. No-one cares except you, Foddy.
"Now the Iraqi government will not sell it where the US doesn't like."
The US doesn't give a damn about where the Iraqi government sells its oil, because, unlike you, they are smart enough to realise that oil is a fungible commodity. However, by virtue of the fact that the US doesn't give a damn, you could potentially argue that the Iraqi government is not selling it to places that the US doesn't approve of.
"In other words, people who are oppressed have to sit around and wait until someone else takes action to help them."
No Foddy. I didn't say that. King had every right to do something that he personally benefitted from, and indeed, I would expect him to have his own human rights very high, if not the top, of his priorities. That is perfectly rational. Just not the actions of a noble hero. For that, you need Wolfowitz etc.
"It's not noble to try to help yourself."
That's actually the very definition of selfish actually.
"What a load of complete and utter nonsense."
Only in your Orwellian world.
"Does this apply not only to racist oppression? What about citizens being oppressed by their government? For example, would it be noble for Iranians to rebel against Ahmadinejad?"
Yes, dying for the freedom of others is indeed noble. And King facing death to get rights for himself and others, is indeed brave.
However, it pales in comparison to those same Iranians then deciding to use their new-found freedom to go and invade Pakistan to protect India (different race, religion, nationality). THAT would be truly noble.
"They would be getting something for themselves by getting rid of him, so will they have to wait until someone from outside - with no personal agenda, of course - does something to help them?"
Not at all, Foddy. Everyone does, and should, do things for themselves. It just shouldn't be a reason to get a public holiday.
BTW, I do the same thing with America. When I hear them saying that it's in their national interest to go and remove a dictator, my heart sinks.
"Bible showed us that there had to be a great and bloody conflict in the Middle East before the Second Coming of Christ."
And although it is indeed patently mad to believe this stuff with the evidence they have available, and the only moral course of action is atheism, they did happen to be right after all. The Iraq war was vital. Message 666 wouldn't have been possible without it, and I would never have known who I was.
"the US is a deeply disturbed and psychotic society, and by far the biggest danger to world peace."
And pricks like you and him are by far the biggest danger to human freedom.
"do these people think of scientists the worl
"do these people think of scientists the world over who are constantly making discoveries about the history of the planet."
No idea. But if they think that the scientists are discovering planted evidence, to fool them, you, and even me (for decades), they'd probably be right.
nonadas, "I have said all along that the God delusion is crap."
Wanna debate? Which bit of the logic is above your ability to understand? You do have the moral foundation required to see that stopping Saddam from raping women and chopping out men's tongues is a noble deed, right? And protecting Americans is also a bloody important thing to do. Right?
And this also applies to human rights for people in places like say Zimbabwe.
Batman, "I guess my hopes for change of guard in Iran have been dashed. I read that every potential reformer has again been vetted and prohibited from standing in the upcoming elections. Most of the candidates, in fact."
You're being played for a fool. There's not even elections for the guard that counts - the Supreme Ayatollah. The Iranians already elected reformers. They couldn't do a damn thing because of the Ayatollah.
How the hell did you miss that? The "elected" president is just a side-show for gullible people. I didn't expect you to be one of them.
War, my friend. Soon. Very very soon.
buh, "You and paul are the stupid, deluded one's, believing everything you hear from liars like bush, cheny, and wolfowitz (him)"
Buh, you still don't get it. I don't let others do my thinking for me. I don't just parrot Wolfowitz like you parrot the Socialist Layabout. I specifically chose Wolfowitz because his view came closest to my own personal view. And I select Iraqi bloggers for the same reason. And I listen to these people, and their logic is sound, because it's the same logic I use. Sometimes they even assist me with my own logic. E.g. at one point someone was able to say to me "when Saddam came to power, he didn't just say ha ha, I'm in charge and there's no a damn thing you can do about it". I hadn't realised that before.
"and looking ony for bad from an entire religion"
Like most decent Americans, he's hoping in vain for the Muslims to denounce the cretins in their midst, call Osama a kaffir, say that the Quran is not the literal word of God, that sort of thing. When it didn't pan out that way, he presumably tends towards the "we gave them a chance, time for genocide". That was my default position up until I realised that Muslims weren't actually evil, they were just natural animals, and that I could simply join them without any military penalty.
"so you can justify your sadistic desire to "kill muscaums" (you.)"
That would probably be you projecting your sadism to "skin the rich" who you falsely accuse of crimes that you would commit if you were rich.
"Nothing I wrote was made up by me, and I get news from a variety of sources."
Yeah, Socialist Layabout volume 1 AND volume 2 AND volume 3. When you have a source such as the US Whitehouse press releases, you dismiss it out of hand while you wait for SL vol 4 to tell you what to think next.
"paul, bush says we could be in Iraq for decades."
You should keep a small force there. Or at least in Turkey. You need to guard against military coups, which is the only way Iraq's democracy can be toppled. I'm about to post about that shortly. There's been a wonderful development.
"paul, a man was sentenced in Afghanistan, to death, I think, because he insulted Islam, without getting a fair trial."
Yep, it's tragic. The Afghans have a LONG way to go to reach western standards. But did you really expect them to become Switzerland overnight? I thought they could do better than the Taliban, and they did.
"Just like we do here in the US (Jose Padilla.)"
Buh, as usual you are completely sick, comparing the innocuous document-reading of one man with a terrorist. You belittle the Afghan tragedy when you do that.
"paul, you are the KING OF CONTRADICTION"
No Buh, you're still just stupid.
"you said that the halocaust was not real"
That's the most likely explanation, yes.
"then told that to a jewish neighbor!"
Deliberately omitting the fact that I didn't know she was Jewish.
"Being god doesn't cure yo
you of asshole-ism, huh."
That is probably true, but not for the reason you cited. I regretted having spoken to her about that. If I was an arsehole like you, I would have been happy about it.
"Then, then, on 1-19, you talk about whether or not the Germans gassed the Jews democratically or not. I call that high contradiction!"
I call it Buh being his usual stupid self, seeing contradictions and grand conspiracies where none exist, while being unable to see his hand in front of his face.
E.g. at one point someone was able to say to me "when Saddam came to power, he didn't just say ha ha, I'm in charge and there's no a damn thing you can do about it". I hadn't realised that before.
--------
He didn't have to say anything. He had everyone that would oppose him killed on the first day.
Foddy,
Once a religion is divorced from government and accepts that it is not its place to impose its particular dogma on others, then it generally becomes a powerful force for good. That is pretty much what we have in America.
Most religious people here have turned their focus from dogma to good works. Churches here are primarily concerned with providing a safe haven, fellowship, and support for their members and others, especially providing activities for children, building schools, hospitals and clinics, outreach to the poor and sick, and other charitable works. I know Baptists in particular, and I think most Christian denominations, have a long history of sending field teams to help impoverished people all over the world by building schools, clinics, etc. Just as one example, I know that religious organizations at our local medical school annually send large teams of doctors to South America, Africa, and other places where there is inadequate health care.
This ability to overcome dogma is why I see Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Hindi, and even some Muslims able to work together, with each other and with atheists, to improve society.
This is why I believe it is worth making every possible effort to bring Muslims from the ME into the fold, before nuking them if they continue to pose a threat. That is why we are in Iraq instead of simply wiping it away with brute force. Which, bizarrely, is what your ilk would accuse of doing.
I certainly don't agree with religious extremists of any stripe that want to infringe on the rights of others. But as a group, people of religion don't get it wrong any more often than atheist groups do, particularly considering secular, liberal academia, which is often far more likely to be off the rails.
You won't find me defending everything that religious people do, but I am frankly disgusted by the slanderous, gross miscaricature that you and others, especially in Europe, try to paint them out to be.
"Gee, nonadas, I thought you were starting to be civil."
I treat you like a rational human being when you act like one.
"You and paul are the stupid, deluded one's,"
This coming from the idiot who believes the Israel lobby "keeps us in line", that America isn't free, that al-Qaeda doesn't exist, that Hezbollah and Hamas are freedom fighters, and that Israel is genociding Palestinians. All this from the Muslim apologist who needs anti-American hate sites like Third World Traveler, Global Research, Information Clearing House and What Really Happened to represent himself.
Get a grip.............
"believing everything you hear from liars like bush, cheny, and wolfowitz"
There are no lies, you delusional dumb fk. You have yet to prove even a single lie from the Bush administration. Meanwhile, you believe all of the lies printed on stalinist websites.
"Nothing I wrote was made up by me,"
Sorry. I guess you aren't thinking for yourself that much after all. It's the stalinist websites you frequent that is doing your thinking for you.
"and I get news from a variety of sources."
When you show me a source that isn't far left anti-American then I might take it seriously. The only lies are within these assinine websites that do your thinking for you.
Get a fn clue....................
"Which bit of the logic is above your ability to understand?"
I guess its the 666 message. How does posting a message with a superstitious number make you God? Also, I believe in God, but not any of the religions. I don't allow powerless, evil men like Muhammad and Moses to fool me into thinking they can lead me to God. I certainly don't accept that a powerless human is God.
"You do have the moral foundation required to see that stopping Saddam from raping women and chopping out men's tongues is a noble deed, right?"
What does this have to do with you being God?
By the way, yes what Saddam did was horrible. That's why I supported the war in Iraq in 2003 and voted for Bush again in 2004. Heck, I'd vote for Bush again in 2008 if I could just to pis off idiots like buh.
However, once Iraq was liberated, these subhuman scum sucking swine that call themselves Muslims immediately went to killing the US. Thanks for nothing, dickheads! We saved you from Saddam! I don't care about these pigs anymore.
The Iraq war was not a mistake by any measure of logic. It exposed these crap bags for what they really are. It got millions of Muslims busy killing eachother instead of focusing on us. Although trying to install democracy was a great idea, perhaps staying there isn't. I say we just pull out, get the popcorn and have fun watching these pig-felating scum murder eachother.
We can't save these pigs and bring them democracy. Their sh1t-filled minds can't understand basic things such as human rights and love. The people who can't see this are people who are blinded by over-optimistic reality like you and Bush, or anti-American dip-sh1ts like buh and foddy.
They will not win................
Sorry, my bad:
"over-optimistic reality" should have been overly optimistic ideology.
"Like most decent Americans, he's hoping in vain for the Muslims to denounce the cretins in their midst, call Osama a kaffir, say that the Quran is not the literal word of God, that sort of thing. When it didn't pan out that way, he presumably tends towards the "we gave them a chance, time for genocide"."
That's exactly correct. I labored under the delusion that the Muslims wanted a better life for themselves and a better future for their chilren just like real humans do ever since I was born until I woke up in 2006. The Muscums have brought death and hopelessness wherever they rule, and they want to bring the whole world under their empire.
It thought that by giving Iraq and Afghanistan democracy, they would be on their way to becoming modern. I was wrong, they fought the liberators and the brave US soldiers that supported the government they voted in. They wanted Saddam. Even the so called "moderates" supported what they called "resistence", as did the Iraqis who got their children killed by the so called "resistence".
I don't want to genocide anyone, but if they keep pressing their luck, we will strike back, or at least Israel will sooner or later. We must kill them for the same reason we had to kill Germans to destroy Hitler. Their movement has far more followers then Hitler could have hoped for, though not yet the military capabilities, thank God.
Anyway, thank you for doing well to sum up my thoughts in a few easy sentences.
Batman
"Once a religion is divorced from government and accepts that it is not its place to impose its particular dogma on others, then it generally becomes a powerful force for good. That is pretty much what we have in America."
With respect that is absolute and utter nonsense! A Muslim or professed atheist would have a snowball's chance in hell being elected President of the US. As it is, every candidate has to pretend to be a committed Christian (maybe Jewish is OK at a pinch) even if he/she is not. Look at the tripe Hillary Clinton has had to come up with to give the impression she is religious! Politicians in the US are SCARED STIFF about the power of the religious lobby.
"You won't find me defending everything that religious people do, but I am frankly disgusted by the slanderous, gross miscaricature that you and others, especially in Europe, try to paint them out to be."
No, we have it dead right! Look at the scorn which was quite rightfully heaped on Tony Blair for his religiosity. We don't want people representing us who have a loyalty to anything/anyone other than their country and electorate. We don't want "God" telling our politicians what to do. If you are Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Muslim or whatever, keep it to yourself; don't bring it into politics.
Paul
You said that the holocaust didn't happen?
Seriously?
Batman
I fully agree with you that many Christians do good works (although most of them with the ulterior motive of conversion).
However, that does not translate into Christianity being something which should be in any shape or form related to government. As it is now in the US, with Christian agenda being pushed very heavily in many areas (both in and outside the US).
Paul
"The Iraq war was vital. Message 666 wouldn't have been possible without it, and I would never have known who I was."
Yet another reason why the invasion of Iraq was a total disaster.
You really have to get your head around the idea that NO-ONE in the world could care less about your stupid message 614 or 666 or 722 or whatever it was. I'm half tempted to go to that topic and count up the messages - if yours really isn't 666, what are you going to do? Maybe someone deleted one earlier on?
nonadas, I don't make up news, are you saying that you do? I form my own opinions based on facts, not emotion like you.
bush went to war because of his insistance that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They didn't, only ann coulter still believes that they did, unless you do too.
Here are 935 bush and co. lies from those stalinists at yahoo news.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20080...formation_study
Also, for a look at the state of the union message and the situation in Iraq from the viewpoint of a real Iraqi:
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/
Hey, paul, if you want to call anyone
stupid, look in the mirror, you delusional pathetic charlatan!
Paul,
Martin Luther King laid his life on the line for his cause and ultimately lost it - how much more noble can you get than that? If I saw Wolfowitz or Bush taking even the slightest personal risk, I might change my mind about their nobility. But no, they just skulk around in the background, surrounded by security and bodyguards.
nonadas, congratulations on being one of the few to actually challenge the logic. It's refreshing.
"I guess its the 666 message. How does posting a message with a superstitious number make you God?"
It's a long story. First of all, what's the correct action for a perfectly rational, moral actor to make in response to:
1. The Soviets enslaving eastern europe.
2. Saddam raping Iraqi women.
3. Christians believing that if they say "I'm a Christian" they get to go to Heaven while atheists are tortured for eternity.
4. 9/11.
"Also, I believe in God, but not any of the religions."
That's a good start. But first. Where's your evidence for any god, and how do you explain God being one sick bastard who would allow Saddam to rape women etc etc?
"I don't allow powerless, evil men like Muhammad and Moses to fool me into thinking they can lead me to God."
Believe it or not, without Mohammed churning out pure evil, it would not have been possible to solve the problem of crime in the west (by non-Muslims).
PE:"You do have the moral foundation required to see that stopping Saddam from raping women and chopping out men's tongues is a noble deed, right?"
"What does this have to do with you being God?"
It's a long story. I thought I had laid it out on my website (www.mutazilah.org). But apparently the logic is too complex. So, let's go through it slowly.
"By the way, yes what Saddam did was horrible. That's why I supported the war in Iraq in 2003 and voted for Bush again in 2004."
That's great. You're a wonderful person. You wanted to protect innocent people regardless of race/religion/sex/nationality. You wouldn't believe how rare that is. I thought it was commonplace, as a result of decades of indoctrination about how wonderful people of other races/religions/etc were, especially compared to us. I was shocked to find ordinary Australians not giving a monkey's arse about some foreign woman getting raped.
"However, once Iraq was liberated, these subhuman scum sucking swine that call themselves Muslims immediately went to killing the US."
Did you notice long queues forming to join the Iraqi security forces, even though Iraq was under foreign military occupation? You're calling those people scum? I call them the bravest most trusting intelligent people on the planet. Despite decades of indoctrination about how bad America was, they turned against all that, turned against Al Jazeera, and despite American incompetence at not providing protection for these people in the queues, they came back again and again and again no matter how many times the queues were blown up. They are amazing people. All that folklore you make up about the brave American revolutionaries, you can see in reality in Iraq.
Now the question becomes - why were some Iraqis so wonderful while others were such scum? Don't you think that was an interesting question to solve?
"Thanks for nothing, dickheads! We saved you f
from Saddam! I don't care about these pigs anymore."
You are treating all Iraqis as pigs just because some of them are pigs. That's actually racist. Even if it's a majority (and it's not clear that it is), that's no reason to abandon the minority. The moral thing to do is to arm the minority and genocide the majority, together. Unless another solution is available, anyway, which was still in the process of being sought.
"The Iraq war was not a mistake by any measure of logic. It exposed these crap bags for what they really are."
It exposed what percentage of the population they were, anyway, and allowed you to contrast with other countries like Australia and Saudi Arabia. And then figure out what was causing scumbags in ALL these countries.
Afghanistan was split 88/11 in favour of liberation. Did you expect that? Their scumbag Muslims too, aren't they? Did you expect Iraqis to be smarter or dumber than Afghans?
"It got millions of Muslims busy killing eachother instead of focusing on us."
Yep. Arming good Muslims against bad ones is exactly the right thing to do.
"Although trying to install democracy was a great idea"
You needed that just to find out what the hell was actually there. Even the Iraqis themselves didn't know what the hell was there. They found out in 2005 the same as us.
"perhaps staying there isn't."
Staying there makes sure that the deaths are one-sided against the bad Muslims. Sounds good to me.
"I say we just pull out, get the popcorn and have fun watching these pig-felating scum murder eachother."
And then when the bad Muslims win, after you've abandoned the good Muslims, your Plan B is what? Nevermind the immorality of Plan A.
"We can't save these pigs and bring them democracy."
This is the funny thing. You don't need to bring them democracy. You need to bring them rational, humanist, non-subjugating government. The good Muslims are the ones who can run such a thing and do the necessary security. You just need to help them get organized. Or at least, this is what you need to do in Syria etc. It is strategic to leave Iraq as a democracy, for experimental purposes if nothing else. If you can demonstrate a superior Syrian dictatorship, you can see what the Iraqis think of that. Maybe they'll vote for Alusi. We don't yet fully understand these people.
"Their sh1t-filled minds can't understand basic things such as human rights and love."
Some do, some don't. Iraq is not a monolith, and it is racist of you to consider it to be. Some Iraqis lay down their lives for others, and would lay down their life for you too. Why can't you supply these wonderful people with arms?
"The people who can't see this are people who are blinded by over-optimistic ideology like you and Bush"
You have no idea what Bush thinks. His actions are completely strategic. Whether by coincidence or not, I have no idea. Let's see you try to point out where my ideology is over-
over-optimistic. Show me something I said that was wrong. Show me where I said that Iraq would turn into Switzerland (or Australia) overnight. I'll show you where I said "I have no idea what these people will do and I want to find out".
PE:"Like most decent Americans, he's hoping in vain for the Muslims to denounce the cretins in their midst, call Osama a kaffir, say that the Quran is not the literal word of God, that sort of thing. When it didn't pan out that way, he presumably tends towards the "we gave them a chance, time for genocide"."
"That's exactly correct."
You have made an assumption that I don't think the same way. All of you are too early to have known me on the Iraqi blogs in 2004. I was initially hated by the Americans because I was calling for genocide against all Muslims. Actually I didn't really want genocide against them. What I wanted was to find out what reasons people had for NOT genociding them. To allow an enemy to breathe.
"I labored under the delusion that the Muslims wanted a better life for themselves and a better future for their chilren just like real humans do ever since I was born until I woke up in 2006."
Different Muslims want different things. Just like Christians and atheists. The world is not divided between Muslims and non-Muslims. The actual divisions are those outlined in message 666. It took me 25 years to find those divisions, but there they are, all laid out for you. I'm on the right side of every division.
"The Muscums have brought death and hopelessness wherever they rule, and they want to bring the whole world under their empire."
Many certainly do. The majority even. But let's explore that minority. What makes them so different? And why are Christians so different (majority)? What caused Christians to burn heathens at the stake, and then stop?
"It thought that by giving Iraq and Afghanistan democracy, they would be on their way to becoming modern."
Both countries have made huge advances. Have you seen how many political parties both countries have? It's out of this world. Compare it to the year 2000.
"I was wrong, they fought the liberators and the brave US soldiers that supported the government they voted in."
The number of insurgents was estimated to be something like 20,000. In a population of 27 million. Don't tell me you've just gone and judged Iraq, not by the 70% who braved terrorist threats to vote, not by the 500,000 who joined the Iraqi security forces, but by the 20,000 scumbags. What's the population of American jails by the way?
"They wanted Saddam."
The poll I saw soon after liberation gave him 5% support. Where did you get your figure that "they" (presumably 50%? or are you claiming 100%?) wanted Saddam? Does that include the 100,000 that rose up against him in 1991 and got slaughtered? And does it include the Kurds (Muslims) too?
"Even the so called "moderates" supported what they called "resistence""
Da
Data please. What exactly is "support"? The vast majority of Iraqis support their own security forces, which are assisting America. Does that count? Or is that an inconvenient fact?
"as did the Iraqis who got their children killed by the so called "resistence"."
Not sure what you're talking about there. Iraqis support having their kids killed by terrorists? Actually it's a big complaint.
"I don't want to genocide anyone"
You should have. That should have been your default position. There is NO REASON to allow a threat to Americans to stand. If you have correctly identified the enemy as "Islam" then you MUST kill EVERY single one. That includes American Muslims too. Reality is that you've misidentified the enemy though. If you want to know who the enemy is, read message 666. Carefully.
"but if they keep pressing their luck, we will strike back"
It's already time to strike back. If you aren't inspired by images of Americans jumping from skyscrapers to annihilate every single anti-American scumbag in the world, then please get off my blog.
"or at least Israel will sooner or later."
You shouldn't let a country of 6 million or whatever they are, do the work of a country of 300 million. That is bloody lazy.
"We must kill them for the same reason we had to kill Germans to destroy Hitler."
Not really. You can easily overthrow every dictator in the Middle East and replace him. That won't solve the problem. You need to do the step after that. You need to de-Nazify them. THAT is what you did in Germany. The question remains exactly how you go about doing that though. What do you propose teaching the Muslims to de-Nazify them? Guess what? The answer is not in the bible. It's in message 666. Again.
"Their movement has far more followers then Hitler could have hoped for, though not yet the military capabilities, thank God."
It's been designed that way, so that you can actually solve the problem in your lifetime.
"Anyway, thank you for doing well to sum up my thoughts in a few easy sentences."
Be very careful about assuming what my thoughts are. How do you think I could so easily sum up your thoughts?
Foddy, "You said that the holocaust didn't happen? Seriously?"
Foddy, do you know anything about computer programming? Can you think of how you would design a computer simulation? How difficult do you think it would be to fake this sort of thing? Even fake what the earth is made of. Go and read www.simulation-argument.com. I didn't write that. It is someone else outlining how he would go about fooling humans. Even reversing time if required. It's a piece of piss, Foddy.
"You really have to get your head around the idea that NO-ONE in the world could care less about your stupid message 614 or 666 or 722 or whatever it was."
It hasn't been widely published yet. There are intelligent people who say "wow" when they read it. Haven't run across a combination of someone who says "wow" with someone who owns a newspaper yet. As such, you have a sneak preview of the greatest scientist achievement in human history. Of course, just like understanding the Theory of Relativity, you're in the camp of dumb planks who can't understand it.
"I'm half tempted to go to that topic and count up the messages - if yours really isn't 666, what are you going to do? Maybe someone deleted one earlier on?"
You can't delete haloscan comments. I saw the number when I posted it. That's why I wrote message 667, quite shocked about what had just happened. It was news to me that the other commenters hadn't been trying to derive exactly the same thing. I just thought that an atheist had beaten them to the finishing line. So I was in for a second shock.
"Martin Luther King laid his life on the line for his cause and ultimately lost it - how much more noble can you get than that?"
Simple - lay your life on the line for a cause that doesn't personally benefit you. Something for complete strangers. Different race, different religion, different nationality.
"If I saw Wolfowitz or Bush taking even the slightest personal risk, I might change my mind about their nobility. But no, they just skulk around in the background, surrounded by security and bodyguards."
If you want to hold up the US soldiers in esteem instead, that's fine by me. There's a hell of a lot of them to go through until you get to King.
But the thing is, the bottleneck is not the soldiers. We have plenty of soldiers. Even if we didn't, we would just need to hire some Gurkhas. The bottleneck is exactly political and it is people like Wolfowitz who need to carry the day. They need to stand up to you left-wing ratbags and do the right thing. Even if they lose office because of immoral Americans. They are doing all that, Foddy.
buh, "I don't make up news, are you saying that you do?"
No, he said that others did your thinking for you.
"I form my own opinions based on facts, not emotion like you."
No you don't, buh. You make up crap, or copy other people's crap, and then form opinions based on that crap, or copy those crap opinions.
"bush went to war because of his insistance that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."
That was certainly the most prominent reason given. Would you have preferred he say "hey, there's a whole lot of scumbag Muslims over there, and we were attacked by scumbag Muslims, so how about we just go over there, kick a few scumbag Muslims in the arse, and see what the hell happens?"? You should be thankful he didn't just push the red button and have the problem solved in 10 minutes.
"They didn't, only ann coulter still believes that they did, unless you do too."
They used to. They were unaccounted for. No-one except Saddam knew that he had unilaterally destroyed them. No-one except Saddam knew that the reason he was acting coy was because of a huge cultural misunderstanding.
"Here are 935 bush and co. lies from those stalinists at yahoo news."
I had a quick look. It isn't lies. It is incorrect statements. And in fact, it's just the one incorrect statement, repeated 935 times. A bit like when your ancestors went around saying that the sun revolved around the earth. By your own standards, you apparently come from a long line of habitual liars.
"Also, for a look at the state of the union message and the situation in Iraq from the viewpoint of a real Iraqi"
That's the thing about Iraqis, buh. Some of them are as dumb as you. Some of them are as smart as Wolfowitz.
"Hey, paul, if you want to call anyone
stupid, look in the mirror, you delusional pathetic charlatan!"
You're projecting again, buh. As for the "charlatan" quip, let's see you try to back that with evidence and logic.
Paul
"There are intelligent people who say "wow" when they read it."
I'm one of them. I'm an intelligent person - I'll let you know my educational background and qualifications if you like - and I went "wow!". In fact "Wow, what a load of crap!".
In any case, if we follow your silly argument that the holocaust was part of a computer simulation, then Saddam Hussein and rape in Iraq may have been too. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
"I don't make up news, are you saying that you do? I form my own opinions based on facts, not emotion like you."
Once again, displaying one of the many facets of your mental instability, you accuse others of what you do all the time. Rant on buh... rant on............
"Here are 935 bush and co. lies from those stalinists at yahoo news."
Thats crap. Paul Edwards is right that it is just a few false statements repeated over and over again. Furthermore, this study was made by the "Center for Public Integrity". It is a George Soros funded group..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Cen...om_George_Soros
See also a counter argument:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers...bush-didnt-lie/
Nice try buh.............
"Also, for a look at the state of the union message and the situation in Iraq from the viewpoint of a real Iraqi:"
I don't give a rat's ass about what these sub-human pigs think. Don't you get it that every time you post one of these "Muslims hate America" articles you only strengthen my argument, not yours?
"Hey, paul, if you want to call anyone
stupid, look in the mirror, you delusional pathetic charlatan!"
Another outburst by the delusional child accusing others of being exactly what he is.
Get some help.....................
I don't see what this has to do with "message 666" but I'll answer.
1. Winning the cold war
2. Nothing. Those ingrateful sub-human bitches attacked the people saving them from the raping.
3. Nothing. As long as they hurt no one, they have the freedom to believe any stupid crap they want.
4. Track down and kill the murderous pig felating scum that kill in the name of allah.
"how do you explain God being one sick who would allow Saddam to women etc etc?"
That and the fact that there are so many people as stupid as the Muslims and buh/foddy is is the best evidense we have against the existence of a benevolent, loving God.
"That's great. You're a wonderful person. You wanted to protect inocent people regardless of race/religion/sex/nationality. You wouldn't believe how rare that is."
I know I found it amazing how people like buh, Michael Moore, Ted Rall and all the other asswipes can justify and rationalize evil.
"Did you notice long queues forming to join the Iraqi security forces"
Yeah I saw. There is still some good Muslims no doubt, but they are a tiny minority.
"Now the question becomes - why were some Iraqis so wonderful while others were such scum?"
Its because they have a murderous ideology that teaches them to hate other people and eachother. They hate everyone.
"You are treating all Iraqis as pigs just because some of them are pigs."
Sure there are a few honest people like Alaa, Omar and Muhammad. But the vast majority of them are sub human nazi muzzy scum. Something like 60% support attacks on Americans and also a large number actually believe Americans are there for oil.
"Afghanistan was split 88/11 in favour of liberation. Did you expect that?"
What? Do you mean 88% support with only 11% oppose the liberation from the Taliban? I would like to see the source, please.
"You needed that just to find out what the hell was actually there."
Giving them democracy and trying to help them was a great idea. When they rejected it and called us murderers and evil, that exposed them for what they really want.
"Staying there makes sure that the deaths are one-sided against the bad Muslims. Sounds good to me."
That is correct. The anti-American left would have you believe that our troops are just "target practice" for the enemy and that they are being easily destroyed. In the real world where us grown ups dwell, ther is many times more sub human scum are being killed then Americans.
"Some Iraqis lay down their lives for others, and would lay down their life for you too."
I doubt it. Most of them would lay down their lives to kill me.
"Let's see you try to point out where my ideology is over-optimistic."
You keep believing you can bring democracy to people who clearly don't want it, and bring human rights to sub-humans.
Hey, I just noticed it was the 40th anniversary of the Tet offensive. You know, the one that was faked by the globalist ruling class of Jews that are keeping us in line..........
nonadas
"Hey, I just noticed it was the 40th anniversary of the Tet offensive. You know, the one that was faked by the globalist ruling class of Jews that are keeping us in line........."
No, it wasn't faked, it was all a computer simulation (or don't you believe that crap either?).
Hurray!!
Paul
You won me some money by coming up with your stupid "oil is a fungible commodity" argument (I predicted to my friend that you would). The fungibility of oil in this context is quite meaningless. Oil in itself may be fungible (insofar as one drop of oil in Venezuela is identical to one drop of oil in Saudi Arabia and one could be exchanged for the other), but here we are talking about the ownership of the oil and the revenue for the sale of that oil. If the owner of one barrel of Iraqi oil sells it, he will get the money for it, not some guy in Venezuela or Saudi Arabia. Now do you get it?
"No, it wasn't faked, it was all a computer simulation (or don't you believe that crap either?)."
Actually, it was a reference to one of buh's wonderful insights into our history.
"And as far as the Vietnam war, it wasn't to free anyone, and the tet offensive was a hoax."
Foddy, you're absolutely right about bush, wolfowitz and co. A bunch of chickenhawk cowards, I sure hope that we don't have to provide wolfowitz with secret service anymore. We shouldn't as he voluntarily quit.
paul, you racist scumbag, if that's the way you want to talk, here's a tidbit I picked up today on Australia.
Seems that Rudd's government is going to apologive to the aboriginals. Jenny Macklin, Federal Minister for indigenous Affairs, said no compensation would be given to those who suffered from the governments past policies. Tens of thousands died from disease, warfare and dispossesion. Indigenous Australians could not vote in national elections until 1962.
Worst of all, between 10 and 30 percent of indigenous children were removed from their homes to be placed with white families or in state run institutions, to assimilate them into the dominant culture. Source: INN World Report.
paul and nonadas, you guys say, evidently, that anyone who thinks as you do are independent thinkers, while anyone who disagrees with you is either crazy or just mindlessly parroting someone elses line.
Bullshit! People like you, who evidently look down on anyone who doesn't believe mass murder is good foreign policy, cause polarization at the very least. You are the reason, you and your like thinking rulers; why we don't talk to Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah. Incidently, saddam wasn't the only one who knew there no weapons of mass destruction. The UN inspectors, Mohammed al-Baradei, Hans Blix, and former US Marine (I believe) and 2000 bush voter Scott Ritter plus everyone else on the team knew. The German government certainly did not think "curveball" was credible. colin powell, didn't really want to give his speech at the UN, knowing it was full of holes. Actually, the administration tried unsuccessfully, repeatedly, to tie Iraq to 9-11. They even said it before the invasion when everyone knew THAT was a lie. The story about "saddam hussein has sought nucular (bush speaking) materials from Africa" (I wish bush would have attempted to say the name of the country in question) was actually pieced together by Italian intellegence agents with dates that didn't match the day of the week, such as saying Sunday, June 1, whatever year, when that date actually fell on a wednesday, proving these notes had to be cobbled at a later date. Other signs of obvious forgery and lying were apparent as well. You scoff at anyone doubting the state story on 9-11, but anyone should have been able to see an administration eager to thwart investigation, destroy evidence, and not show anywhere near the concern, let alone spend as much money, as was spent on investigating the monica lewinski affair.
I'm sorry, I made a mistake in recalling the event in the Viet Nam war that was a false flag. It wasn't the tet offensive, it was the gulf of Tonkin incident, which got the US much deeper into the war. So I accept your ridicule here. Let's see YO
YOU own up to yor mistakes! OH, that's right you don't make any. Her is one of many links exposing the gulf of Tonkin:
http:www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261
Earlier. I meant "Seems like Rudd"s government is going to apologize."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Afghanistan risks reverting to a failed state and a haven for global terrorism without new U.S. and international efforts to win the war and deliver economic development, two studies said on Wednesday
LOL Afghanistan is ALREADY a failed state : the Failed States Index 2007
Some very good news :
"Ready to Quit Afghanistan, Canada PM Tells Bush "
End of military occupation ! Power to the afghan people ! US go home !
The Department of State continues to strongly warn U.S. citizens against travel to Afghanistan. There is an ongoing threat to kidnap and assassinate U.S. citizens and Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) workers throughout the country. The ability of Afghan authorities to maintain order and ensure the security of citizens and visitors is very limited. Remnants of the former Taliban regime and the al-Qa’ida network, and other groups hostile to the (PUPPET) Afghan and U.S. governments, remain very active. NATO-led military operations continue, with the involvement of U.S. forces. Travel in all areas of Afghanistan, including the capital, Kabul, is unsafe due to military operations, landmines, banditry, armed rivalry among political and tribal groups, and the possibility of terrorist attacks, including attacks using vehicular or other improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The security environment remains volatile and unpredictable. No part of Afghanistan should be considered immune from violence, and the potential exists throughout the country for hostile acts, either targeted or random, against American nationals at any time.
Attacks on international organizations, international aid workers, and foreign interests have continued since June 2006. The number of attacks in the south and southwestern areas of the country continues to increase as a result of insurgent and drug-related activity. There were more than 130 suicide bomber and vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) attacks throughout the country in 2006. Kabul was particularly hard hit by militant attacks, such as several detonations of a remote-controlled IED and VBIED on Jalalabad Road, a suicide bomber attack upon a U.S. military convoy near Massoud Circle and the U.S. Embassy compound, a body-borne IED detonation against an ISAF convoy traveling to Kabul International Airport, and a magnetic bomb explosion in the vicinity of the Intercontinental Hotel in western Kabul. These incidents resulted in many deaths and injuries of U.S. and coalition personnel and local civilians.
Incidents have occurred with higher frequency on the Kabul-Jalalabad Road (commonly called Jalalabad Road) since June 2006. Because of an increase in information over the past several months about potential attacks on this road, its use is highly restricted for Embassy employees and, if the security situation warrants, sometimes is curtailed completely.
Since mid-2006 foreigners throughout the country continued to be targeted for violent attacks and kidnappings, whether motivated by terrorism or criminality. A Pakistani construction contractor in Zabul province was kidnapped and a Colombian NGO employee in Wardak province disappeared; neither has been found. Two German journalists were kidnapped and killed while traveling between Baghlan and Bamiyan provinces. An Italian journalist was abducted from a public bus traveling between Lashkar Gah and Kandahar and held by gunmen for three
From a recent interview with Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan.
"Q. How much influence does Iran have in your country right now, Mr. President?
A. We have had a particularly good relationship with Iran the past six years. It's a relationship that I hope will continue. We have opened our doors to them. They have been helping us in Afghanistan. The United States very wisely understood that it is our neighbor and encouraged that relationship. I hope Iran would also understand that the United States is a great ally of ours and that we value that alliance with the United States. So that is the foundation of our relations with them, and I hope that it will continue as it is."
Hmm, seems a slightly different assessment to Bush's! Maybe that's why the US isn't so keen in providing further military help in Afghanistan?
Foddy,
PE:"There are intelligent people who say "wow" when they read it."
"I'm one of them. I'm an intelligent person"
Unfortunately not, Foddy. You're as dumb as a lamp post. You can't see your long string of logical fallacies, you can't see that you fabricate evidence all the time, you can't see that you're completely immoral. Even after it has all been explained to you in great detail. You just don't get it.
"I'll let you know my educational background and qualifications if you like"
It's as meaningless as the Muslim terrorists who also have degrees. Yes, you have the ability to pass exams. But no, you aren't in the least intelligent. And you're no more moral than them either. In fact, in some ways you are more immoral than Saddam himself. Because you should have known better. Saddam has an excuse that he was indoctrinated since he was born. You have no such excuse. You lived in a free society with a modern education.
"and I went "wow!". In fact "Wow, what a load of crap!"."
Yep, it clearly went over your head.
"In any case, if we follow your silly argument that the holocaust was part of a computer simulation, then Saddam Hussein and rape in Iraq may have been too. Put that in your pipe and smoke it."
I already said that is exactly what is probably happening, and is the best answer to how there could possibly be a benevolent god. I made up that best answer, Foddy. Another achievement that went way over your head. However, in the absence of incontrovertible PROOF that that is what is happening, a rational, moral actor should assume it is real and act accordingly. And immoral actors (that would be you, Foddy) should find any excuse to keep Saddam raping.
"The fungibility of oil in this context is quite meaningless."
No it isn't, Foddy. It's just yet another thing that goes way over your head (or at least, you pretend that it does).
"Oil in itself may be fungible (insofar as one drop of oil in Venezuela is identical to one drop of oil in Saudi Arabia and one could be exchanged for the other), but here we are talking about the ownership of the oil and the revenue for the sale of that oil. If the owner of one barrel of Iraqi oil sells it, he will get the money for it, not some guy in Venezuela or Saudi Arabia. Now do you get it?"
You've completely missed the other part of the equation. Iraq gets exactly the same price for its oil whether it sells it to the nicest democracy in the world, or the worst dictatorship in the world. Oil is sold at world prices, and it doesn't matter a damn except in your fantasy world.
Thick as a lamp post, Foddy.
Foddy, "Hmm, seems a slightly different assessment to Bush's!"
Funny, isn't this the guy who's supposed to be one of Bush's puppets?
"Maybe that's why the US isn't so keen in providing further military help in Afghanistan?"
Or maybe it's because they (correctly) think that NATO should pull its weight to free up US resources for other missions, and they want to actually have a real military alliance rather than a practical joke.
Again, it's exactly what I would do too. It's cunning use of resources.
buh, "Foddy, you're absolutely right about bush, wolfowitz and co. A bunch of chickenhawk cowards"
buh, if you think the only people who are allowed to have an opinion on the use of military force are the military, that's fine by me. The military is pro-war. Let's see you squirm out of that predicament created by your own dishonesty.
"I sure hope that we don't have to provide wolfowitz with secret service anymore."
So much for being a coward. He sticks his neck out despite the risk of assassination from your friends and allies.
""paul, you racist scumbag, if that's the way you want to talk"
Who am I racist against, buh? If you're calling me racist purely because of my skin colour, then it is YOU that is the racist, as usual.
"here's a tidbit I picked up today on Australia."
You're pretending to care about Australian Aborigines when you don't care about Iraqi women being raped? Sure, buh. I believe you.
"Seems that Rudd's government is going to apologive to the aboriginals."
He's not apologizing on my behalf. I didn't vote for the slimy prick. And quite frankly, if he did something to the Aborigines that he feels he should apologize for, he should be in jail, not our PM. Actually, capital punishment would be the best form of symbolism there.
"Jenny Macklin, Federal Minister for indigenous Affairs, said no compensation would be given to those who suffered from the governments past policies."
Especially imaginary inherited suffering. I'm suffering from living under a Labor government. Where's my cash? And I'm suffering from previous Labor governments banning pornography. Hell, I was incarcerated by the CURRENT (state) Labor government. Gimme gimme gimme.
"Tens of thousands died from disease"
Right. Blaming the government for - wait for it - bacteria. I had that happen to me just 2 weeks ago. Where's my friggin money you fascist government?
"warfare"
Warfare? There was no war, buh.
"and dispossesion."
There is actually no record of claim to ownership of any part of Australia in recorded history until the British turned up. Now its owned by all Australians. A racist prick like you would say that some Australians deserve more land than others based on skin colour, right? That is what you are saying. Nevermind that Aborigines already own or control about 15% of the land mass despite only being 1% of the population. Where's my free land, buh?
"Indigenous Australians could not vote in national elections until 1962."
That's true, except it's 1967 I believe. They also couldn't be jailed for failing to turn up to jury duty as summoned before that time. What time would you like us to have started jailing Aborigines for failing to carry out their civic responsibilities as Australian citizens?
"Worst of all, between 10 and 30 percent of indigenous children were removed from their homes to be placed with white families or in state run institutions, to assimilate
them into the dominant culture."
No, because they were unfit parents. It happened to unfit whites too. Regardless, it puts a lie under your other claims about poor Aborigines being born into poverty so that's why they fail to get ahead. The ones who were moved were no longer living in self-created poverty.
Besides which, all of this is dragging up 40-year old (at the earliest - other incidents are going back centuries), demonstrating that you can't find a damn thing that white Australians are doing wrong today, so you're desperately trying to find something from the past to screw us over with. That's racism, buh. Pure ugly racism. No need to ask the Germans how they could gas Jews. No need to ask the KKK how they could string up blacks. Ask yourself how you could attack whites for the alleged crimes of other whites, based on nothing but skin colour. This is a deliberate attack, buh. It's not like white Australians came over to your house and raped your wife and you're looking for any old excuse to attack Australians. You are the instigator of hostility, despite being supposedly anti-war. You're not anti-war/anti-violence/anti-hostility. You just don't like America winning or whites being safe and have human rights.
"you guys say, evidently, that anyone who thinks as you do are independent thinkers"
No buh, that depends on asking them what they think. None of us are alike. If you ask us you will find out our reasons for wanting war, and our tactics etc. You'll find that most pro-war people (incorrectly) think that Bush stuffed it up, and will explain to you why.
"while anyone who disagrees with you is either crazy"
That is determined only after asking them why they disagree and watching the chain of illogic, instead of logic, come out.
"or just mindlessly parroting someone elses line."
That would be from the quotes where you mindless parrot someone else instead of explaining which parts you agree with and which parts they're full of shit. I never see lefties explaining which other lefties are full of shit. It's wall-to-wall groupthink.
"Bullshit! People like you, who evidently look down on anyone who doesn't believe mass murder is good foreign policy"
No, we look down on people like you who don't see that your description fits the Muslim dictatorships and terrorists and that we are the police responding to that by eliminating the criminals.
"cause polarization at the very least."
You caused the polarization when you backed the terrorists instead of the free world.
"You are the reason, you and your like thinking rulers; why we don't talk to Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah."
Yes, buh. You say that as if it's an insult, instead of realizing that we are proud that we did the right thing.
"Incidently, saddam wasn't the only one who knew there no weapons of mass destruction."
Yes he was. Even the different branches of his military didn't know. Each of them thought that one of the oth
others had it.
"The UN inspectors, Mohammed al-Baradei, Hans Blix, and former US Marine (I believe) and 2000 bush voter Scott Ritter plus everyone else on the team knew."
No they didn't know, buh. Just like you they completely made that up without evidence. It is actually not possible to prove something like that. You can't prove that pink unicorns don't exist, just because you've never seen one to date. Your inability to understand such simple logic shows what a joke you are.
"The German government certainly did not think "curveball" was credible. colin powell, didn't really want to give his speech at the UN, knowing it was full of holes."
It was a guess, buh, based on intelligence. Saddam had me fooled too. I couldn't think of a logical reason why he would act so cagily and risk getting toppled. Turned out that there was an illogical reason to act cagily. People like me and the US government aren't used to dealing with illogic. We expect countries and weapons systems to behave logically.
"Actually, the administration tried unsuccessfully, repeatedly, to tie Iraq to 9-11."
So?
"They even said it before the invasion when everyone knew THAT was a lie."
They said what?
"The story about "saddam hussein has sought nucular (bush speaking) materials from Africa" (I wish bush would have attempted to say the name of the country in question) was actually pieced together by Italian intellegence agents"
So? Why blame Bush for Italian incompetence? BTW, the intelligence community previously got it wrong and told the US government that Saddam had disarmed. That was before his son-in-laws defected. The intelligence community is hopeless, but then, it's all one big guess, so who cares? You should always err on the side of caution and send in your military to find out for sure. There's no disadvantage to this. You have an excuse and you get to free millions of people, and eliminate an enemy governemnt.
"You scoff at anyone doubting the state story on 9-11"
For good reason. E.g. we have Osama on videotape boasting about it, and even writing a letter explaining why attacking civilians could be justified.
"but anyone should have been able to see an administration eager to thwart investigation"
No buh. You only saw that in your fertile imagination. The real world isn't as exciting as your fantasy world, but I'm afraid it's the one that the right-wing chooses to live in. Yes, it'd be nice if Peter Pan could fly around and trees turned into chocolate, but the world is much more dull than that.
"destroy evidence"
Nope. There was one of your lefty politicians putting some classified documents in his underpants though. Maybe you got confused with that?
"and not show anywhere near the concern, let alone spend as much money, as was spent on investigating the monica lewinski affair."
There's nothing more to investigate you idiot. They've spent hundreds of billions of dollars respondin
responding to the attacks. If you want to accuse the US government of something, you should accuse them of not starting a Manhattan Project to investigate what turns people into scumbag anti-American terrorists and what turns people into scumbag anti-American Americans. ie we need to investigate YOU, buh. What turned you into a fruitcake? If we can figure that out, and get 99% of Americans decent people who want to liberate others, we can then work on getting 99% of Iraqis to be decent too.
Anonymous, "Afghanistan is ALREADY a failed state"
No it isn't. It is becoming constantly better in every way. Girls are being educated, economy growing, land mines being cleared, army growing, everything.
"Ready to Quit Afghanistan, Canada PM Tells Bush"
Now there's cowardly politicians for you. All they need to do is nod their head, but they're scared of nasty words from the left-wing. Where's Wolfowitz when you need him?
"End of military occupation!"
There is no military occupation. The US never took over the government. First the Northern Alliance took over, then it was replaced by a democracy. All the US did was hunt down terrorists and train Afghans who asked to be trained. This is all quite deliberate. It shows people like you up for the fools you are.
"Power to the afghan people!"
Power is in the hands of the Afghan people, thanks to some well-placed JDAMs. That's what all those people queueing to vote were.
"US go home!"
The Afghan people don't want the US to leave until their army is up to speed. Go and ask them.
Paul
"Iraq gets exactly the same price for its oil whether it sells it to the nicest democracy in the world, or the worst dictatorship in the world. Oil is sold at world prices, and it doesn't matter a damn except in your fantasy world."
So what? You STILL don't get the point and you've started your classic wriggling (as usual when you get your arse handed to you in a sling!). OF COURSE the price of oil is the same. The point (in a vain attempt to explain it to you yet again) is that if Saddam had remained in power, he could have sold it to whomever he pleased, and it may well have pleased him to sell to someone the US would not have approved of. NOW, the US is so far up the rear of the Iraqi government that they wouldn't dare sell to someone the US doesn't approve of. In other words, the US is in a position to CONTROL what happens to the oil, whereas they couldn't before.
Add to that the threat of Saddam selling oil in other than US$ and the light might slowly dawn on you what the point is. But maybe you STILL don't get it (or don't want to, more likely).
nonadas, "I don't see what this has to do with "message 666" but I'll answer."
And you don't see what message 666 has to do with God, because it's (apparently) extremely complex. Who would have thought that the truth about the universe was complex?!
"1. Winning the cold war"
Yep.
"2. Nothing. Those ingrateful sub-human bitches attacked the people saving them from the raping."
Wrong. Do you really think when you're at the Pearly Gates, this argument is going to wash? A completely innocent woman was being raped, and you called her a subhuman bitch? If you were God, and you heard someone say something like that, what would you do?
"3. Nothing. As long as they hurt no one, they have the freedom to believe any stupid crap they want."
You're conflating two issues. Yes, they have the freedom to believe this horrible crap, but it is harmful to the world that these savages get created with no conscience because they've been told they've got a guaranteed place in Heaven. Not unlike the terrorists in fact. What should a rational, moral actor do with this blight on humanity? What would God advise if he was writing a book for humans? Do you think he would say "xyz religion is complete crap because abc and should be replaced with def"? Yep.
"4. Track down and kill the murderous pig felating scum that kill in the name of allah."
Yep.
Ok, you've managed to get 1 and 4 right. So let's expand on that. HOW would you win the Cold War with lefty pricks supporting the Soviet Union? How would you track down the pigs when you have 90% or whatever of Europeans anti-war, and 50% of your own country anti-war? What should a rational, moral actor do?
PE:"how do you explain God being one sick who would allow Saddam to women etc etc?"
"That and the fact that there are so many people as stupid as the Muslims and buh/foddy is is the best evidense we have against the existence of a benevolent, loving God."
Exactly. So, when you see this inconsistency, what would a rational actor do? Answer - become an atheist and not allow this superstituous nonsense interfere with fixing the world. Because it really does interfere. People pray to God when they should be taking action. People ignore atrocities saying "God will deal with that". A rational, moral actor MUST attempt to spread atheism rather than allow this negative influence to persist.
PE:"That's great. You're a wonderful person. You wanted to protect inocent people regardless of race/religion/sex/nationality. You wouldn't believe how rare that is."
"I know I found it amazing how people like buh, Michael Moore, Ted Rall and all the other asswipes can justify and rationalize evil."
Again - being rational and moral - what is the appropriate response to Michael Moore etc? If you want to protect women from being raped, and Moore's fat arse is in the way, what should you do?
PE:"Did you notice long queues forming to join the Iraqi security forces"
"Yeah I saw. There is still some good Muslims no doubt, but they are a tiny minority."
Well, back to the rational, moral action. If there are good Muslims, you shouldn't be trying to genocide Muslims, you should only be trying to genocide BAD Muslims. And while you're at it, you may as well genocide bad Christians, atheists etc too. Why not? They'll rape your daughter if you're not careful. Bad Americans. So, next question - how do you distinguish good Muslims from bad Christians? You clearly can't just ask "what's your religion?". So, your answer is?
PE:"Now the question becomes - why were some Iraqis so wonderful while others were such scum?"
"Its because they have a murderous ideology that teaches them to hate other people and eachother. They hate everyone."
I need more information here. What exactly is this "ideology" that makes Ali Fadhil a wonderful Iraqi and Riverbend such scum?
PE:"You are treating all Iraqis as pigs just because some of them are pigs."
"Sure there are a few honest people like Alaa, Omar and Muhammad."
That is sufficient evidence to stop you from hating Muslims and be more specific about who you hate.
"But the vast majority of them are sub human nazi muzzy scum."
Sure. So eliminate the vast majority. Don't nuke them. Arm the good minority and kill the vast majority. But you still haven't distinguished these two groups of people, nor explained how you are going to pigeonhole them so that the right ones get killed.
"Something like 60% support attacks on Americans"
Yep, it's very worrying indeed. And eventually, we may need to reduce Iraq's population by 60%.
"and also a large number actually believe Americans are there for oil."
A large number of Australians believe the Australian government went there for oil too. Want me to kill them?
PE:"Afghanistan was split 88/11 in favour of liberation. Did you expect that?"
"What? Do you mean 88% support with only 11% oppose the liberation from the Taliban?"
Yep. Maybe you need to fundamentally alter your worldview.
"I would like to see the source, please."
The various polls are available at:
http://antisubjugator.blogspot.c...raqi-
polls.html
PE:"You needed that just to find out what the hell was actually there."
"Giving them democracy and trying to help them was a great idea."
Yep. The only way I know of to solve the problem with such a shortage of real information from the Arabs.
"When they rejected it"
They don't speak with one voice. Stop grouping the good with the bad. Would you like it if I said that you were scumbag KKKer?
"and called us murderers and evil"
Some did. Some did the exact opposite.
"that exposed them for what they really want."
You continue to treat the Iraqis as a monolith, when the civil strife clearly indicates anything but. Time to adjust your worldview.
PE:"Staying there makes sure that the deaths are one-
one-sided against the bad Muslims. Sounds good to me."
"That is correct. The anti-American left would have you believe that our troops are just "target practice" for the enemy and that they are being easily destroyed. In the real world where us grown ups dwell, ther is many times more sub human scum are being killed then Americans."
Yep, and the process will continue even after the Americans are severely reduced in number, possibly to zero. A small upfront cost and you've built yourself a train.
PE:"Some Iraqis lay down their lives for others, and would lay down their life for you too."
"I doubt it. Most of them would lay down their lives to kill me."
Most will not do that. Regardless, I don't know which way the numbers go. Just that there's some who will protect you, and you need to factor this into your worldview.
PE:"Let's see you try to point out where my ideology is over-optimistic."
"You keep believing you can bring democracy to people"
Nothing over-optimistic about that. It's already been proven. If you're not careful, you'll be as blind as buh. They had over 300 parties competing for elections with a turnout rate of something like 70-80% despite the risk of terrorism. Compare that to the US elections with about 3 parties, 40% turnout rate, despite no risk of terrorism. You should be more worried about democracy not being possible in America!
"who clearly don't want it"
70-80% turnout rate in defiance of the terrorists and it's "clear" that they don't want it? buh, are you pretending to be nonadas? Stop doing that, it's confusing.
"and bring human rights to sub-humans."
That is also mission accomplished. Iraqis now have their human rights enshrined in their constitution. Not even Australia has that. America does, but no Australia. In addition, they've got 500k security forces that are enforcing those Iraqi laws. Australia has far far fewer. Even America may not have that percentage of security forces.
All enforcing Iraqi law (or if they get caught disobeying it, they get charged and jailed, just as happens to Americans who disobey American law).
The infrastructure is all in place. There is some question about whether they might LOSE this infrastructure some time in the future. But as every year passes by, and no-one calls for eliminating human rights from the Iraqi constitution, and no-one talks of stopping the Iraqi security forces from enforcing those laws, it appears that it will continue to stay the same into the next year. And the year after that. And in 1000 years time, perhaps your descendants will be quibbling with my ancestors that we can't judge them by the first 1000 years of democracy, that their history is many thousands of years old, and we need to wait until at least that time has been equalled. They'll probably also be citing the 40% turnout rate and saying that it is "clear" that democracy has failed in Iraq.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting
debate so far. It sure beats trying to get buh and Foddy to recognize reality. I like to be challenged by someone who is going to debate using logic instead of logical fallacies. 
Paul
""Seems that Rudd's government is going to apologize to the aboriginals."
He's not apologizing on my behalf."
Oh yes he is! Perhaps someone should explain the meaning of democracy to you. If Australia were to declare war on Iran (which, by the way it won't do), then that would be in your name. If conscription was introduced and you were called up to serve in the army, try saying "I didn't vote for the present government, so it doesn't apply to me."
As usual, you claim to love democracy when you agree with what it does, but when it doesn't, somehow you don't feel quite the same about it!
Paul
""You keep believing you can bring democracy to people"
Nothing over-optimistic about that. It's already been proven."
How simplistic can you get!! Iraq is suddenly a democracy because they had elections?? Are you serious? Wait 50 years and then say whether it's a democracy or not.
Nonadas is quite right (for a change) and, you (as usual) have your head in the sand, thus exposing your thinking parts (to quote the late George Carman).
Foddy,
PE:"Iraq gets exactly the same price for its oil whether it sells it to the nicest democracy in the world, or the worst dictatorship in the world. Oil is sold at world prices, and it doesn't matter a damn except in your fantasy world."
"So what?"
The "so what" is that that is the other side of the equation. You don't seem to be able to understand either side. So much for any claim of intelligence. This is like not even being able to tell the difference between a round object an a square object at kindergarten.
"You STILL don't get the point"
YOU don't HAVE a point. You have a flawed reasoning and a fabrication.
"and you've started your classic wriggling"
No, I've started my usual laborious explanation as if explaining to someone who should by rights be in kindergarten reviewing that square vs round thing again.
"(as usual when you get your arse handed to you in a sling!)"
No Foddy, that only ever happens in your fantasy world.
"OF COURSE the price of oil is the same."
Well done. You've got one tiny thing right. You can recognize that if two numbers are the same, it is the same number.
"The point (in a vain attempt to explain it to you yet again)"
It's you that needs to understand, Foddy.
"is that if Saddam had remained in power, he could have sold it to whomever he pleased, and it may well have pleased him to sell to someone the US would not have approved of."
I've already answered this, Foddy. The US neither approves nor disapproves of who Iraq sells its oil to. It's a fungible commodity. No-one gives a damn. You're too stupid to understand this. Go and talk to some pro-war people and see what answers you get. Explain the benefit of invading Iraq to be able to force the Iraqi government to sell oil to one set of vendors instead of another, and they'll point out the same thing that I pointed out to you. It doesn't make any difference. The market will be fulfilled by another supplier, as always. It's only loony lefties like you who use flawed reasoning to see a benefit to going to war with regards to oil. I've yet to hear a single pro-war person use that faulty reasoning. They're not as dumb as you lefties.
"NOW, the US is so far up the rear of the Iraqi government that they wouldn't dare sell to someone the US doesn't approve of."
Wrong. That's more crap you just made up. Completely fabricated, as usual. Show me any evidence of the US forcing the Iraqi government to do a damn thing, or indeed, even evidence of pro-war Americans wanting to force the Iraqi government to do something (and if so, what?). If you actually try to gather such evidence, you will fall flat on your face. You've got 3 pro-war people right here you can test your whacky theory out on. But that's the trouble with you lefties. You don't dare test your theories to try to prove them wrong, because you know your worldview will be shattered. Go and look up "confirmation bias", Foddy
Foddy. That's you to a T.
"In other words, the US is in a position to CONTROL what happens to the oil, whereas they couldn't before."
They are in no more of a position to control the Iraqi government than they are of controlling the Australian government. In both cases the other governments are independent actors. There's more troops in Iraq for sure, and they're all helping to enforce IRAQI LAW MADE BY IRAQIS. If you have any complaints about the Iraqi government, take it up with the Iraqi people, who voted for the idiots, twice. I would have voted for Alusi.
"Add to that the threat of Saddam selling oil in other than US$ and the light might slowly dawn on you what the point is."
No Foddy, you might learn that currency is readily convertible too.
"But maybe you STILL don't get it (or don't want to, more likely)."
I'm not sure you even have a brain, Foddy. You can't see that everything you say applies to yourself, not me.
Foddy,
PE:"He's not apologizing on my behalf."
"Oh yes he is!"
Oh no he isn't.
"Perhaps someone should explain the meaning of democracy to you."
Perhaps its you that needs the explanation.
"If Australia were to declare war on Iran (which, by the way it won't do), then that would be in your name."
No it wouldn't. It would be in the name of the people who supported that action.
"If conscription was introduced and you were called up to serve in the army, try saying "I didn't vote for the present government, so it doesn't apply to me.""
No, I have certain obligations as a citizen, and that is one of them.
"As usual, you claim to love democracy when you agree with what it does, but when it doesn't, somehow you don't feel quite the same about it!"
Pardon? I said very recently, this post maybe even, that I supported rational humanist non-subjugating government over democracy. The current Australian government is neither rational nor humanist when it starts doing racist and immoral things.
"How simplistic can you get!!"
How much of a moron can you get?
"Iraq is suddenly a democracy because they had elections?? Are you serious?"
Yep. What definition of democracy are you using, Foddy?
"Wait 50 years and then say whether it's a democracy or not."
In 50 years time I will decide whether Australia is a democracy too. I can only judge current reality, not project 50 years ahead. Are you saying that Poland, Hungary etc etc are not democracies, because they've only been voting for 20 years, not the required 50? Which orifice did you get 50 from anyway? And France has only had democratic elections since 1945. So that means just over 60 years. So France just scrapes in as a democracy, does it? Australia is one of very few countries in the world with 100 years of democracy. Democracy is very young. And some democracies are younger than others. That's why we call them young democracies, rather than cruel dictatorships.
Paul
"No, I have certain obligations as a citizen, and that is one of them."
It seems that you are finally understanding. In other words, if Rudd says that you have to join the army, you HAVE TO DO IT, whether you voted for him or not. Got it??
[nonadas] "We haven't stolen any oil, you pathetic piece of sh1t. Stop lying you deranged, delusional 9-11 denying, closet Muslim conspiracy nut."
I refer:
"An Iraqi MP preferred to remain anonymous told the newspaper that highly confidential negotiations took place by representatives from American oil companies, offering $5 million to each MP who votes in favor of the Oil and Gas law."
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/...ss-the-oil-law/
[nonadas] "However, once Iraq was liberated, these subhuman scum sucking swine that call themselves Muslims immediately went to killing the US. Thanks for nothing, dickheads! We saved you from Saddam! I don't care about these pigs anymore."
In other words, because a sick punctured fuckbag like nonadas had his precious little illusion that the Arab masses were just waiting to be conquered by America ... suddenly they are not worth his time anymore. Instead of revising his idiotic fantasy that Iraqis would actually welcome getting crushed, he draws the conclusion they are no longer worthy of his compassion and deserve to die instead.
I mean, let's forget that any rational human wouldn't appreciate having their country destroyed - let's focus instead on the fact that this noodlehead nonadas thinks they should be GRATEFUL for it!! Essentially this brain-deficient, gurgling retard gets his rocks off by blaming the VICTIMS of the saga!
Well, no WONDER America has problems, if dribbling idiots like him are free not only to run about the streets but also able to get access to a computer, instead of being in stocks receiving the sound whipping they so thoroughly deserve, not to mention being pelted with soggy fecal matter by the general public.
HOW do people become so STUPID, not to mention truculent?
Is it the product of generations of inbreeding?
Or is it the result of imbibing prodigious quantities of whiskey, not to mention neoconservative propaganda?
A mystery alright.
Paul
""Iraq is suddenly a democracy because they had elections?? Are you serious?"
Yep."
Let's get this straight. You're saying that any country which has elections is a democracy. Right?
Hey Bruno!!
Long time no see. Happy New Year! Paul is just as mad as ever (in fact even more so). His latest discovery is that the Holocaust never happened.
Foddy, "It seems that you are finally understanding."
I always understood, Foddy, it's you who was mistaken.
"In other words, if Rudd says that you have to join the army, you HAVE TO DO IT, whether you voted for him or not. Got it??"
Sure. But he's not doing it in my name unless I was one of the ones who supported the action. The fact that I'm outgunned/outvoted by other Australians is a separate issue.
"Let's get this straight. You're saying that any country which has elections is a democracy. Right?"
Nope. They must be free and fair. Also, this only qualifies as democracy, not liberal democracy. The Germans democratically elected Hitler, the Venezuelans democratically elected Chavez and the Palestinians democratically elected terrorists.
Still waiting for your definition of "democracy" Foddy.
BTW, I thought of a simpler way of explaining oil to you.
Let's say we have 4 countries, two good, two bad.
Iraq is good, Venezuela is bad. Both have oil.
Australia is good, Syria is bad. Neither have oil. Both need $1 million worth of oil tomorrow.
The US (in your fertile imagination) tells Iraq to stop selling oil to bad countries. Iraq had previously been selling oil to Syria.
So now, Iraq is forced to sell oil to Australia. So now Australia pays Iraq $1 million for the oil. Venezuela needs to find a new market for its oil (previously it was selling to Australia). Lo and behold, the Syrian market is suddenly available. So now Venezuela sells its oil to Syria.
At the end of the day, Iraq gets $1 million, Venezuela gets $1 million. Syria and Australia both get the exact same amount of oil, both shipments worth $1 million.
So, the US achieved precisely squat by acting like a bully. In fact, it had a negative effect. Which is one reason you won't find any pro-war people supporting doing such a silly thing, and you won't find any evidence of Bush doing such a thing either. The only place any of this crap happens is in your fantasy world.
Bruno,
"An Iraqi MP preferred to remain anonymous"
Great. One single anonymous source, as a substitute for actual evidence. 275 MPs were offered $5 million (what form did the offer come in?), and only one spilled the beans, but he refused to give his name so that more questions could be asked. With sources of information like this, it's no wonder everything that comes out of your mouth is shit.
"from American oil companies, offering $5 million to each MP who votes in favor of the Oil and Gas law."
And even if that did happen, which it almost certainly didn't, that is not Bush stealing oil. That is some private US citizens offering money. That's not actually illegal. I can offer you money to go and slit your throat.
"the Arab masses were just waiting to be conquered by America"
SOME of the Arabs were waiting to be LIBERATED by America. About half in fact. Compared to about 88% of Afghans.
"Instead of revising his idiotic fantasy that Iraqis would actually welcome getting crushed"
You were the one with the idiotic fantasy that there were no Iraqis who wanted to be liberated and they all loved Saddam. It is you who refused to revise your idiotic fantasy.
"he draws the conclusion they are no longer worthy of his compassion and deserve to die instead."
By rights, after 9/11, America had the right to start nuking every place in the world harbouring anti-Americans, in order to protect itself. Which means every damn country on the planet, even Australia. You should be grateful you are allowed to be anti-American without any repercussions.
"I mean, let's forget that any rational human wouldn't appreciate having their country destroyed"
You wouldn't recognize a rational human if he bit you in the arse. Rational humans appreciate having their country liberated followed by receiving reconstruction aid.
"let's focus instead on the fact that this noodlehead nonadas thinks they should be GRATEFUL for it!!"
Some Iraqis WERE grateful for it. About half. And if I was living under a dictatorship, I'd appreciate being liberated too. I'd even offer to pay for the military costs of freeing me.
"Essentially this brain-deficient, gurgling retard gets his rocks off by blaming the VICTIMS of the saga!"
It is you who does that, for the reasons you stated.
"Well, no WONDER America has problems, if dribbling idiots like him are free not only to run about the streets but also able to get access to a computer, instead of being in stocks receiving the sound whipping they so thoroughly deserve, not to mention being pelted with soggy fecal matter by the general public."
It's no wonder that your country has even worse problems, for the reasons you just stated.
"HOW do people become so STUPID, not to mention truculent?"
I don't know. Perhaps you were dropped on the head as a baby.
"Is it the product of generations of inbreeding?"
I think it's the Marxist racist ideology you were forc
force-fed by your new masters in your one-party state. It's much better to pretend that you like living under a racist government than have to face the fact that you're treated as scum by your own government. Stockholm syndrome.
"Or is it the result of imbibing prodigious quantities of whiskey, not to mention neoconservative propaganda?"
It's Marxist propaganda you should be worried about. It's what makes you have to pretend that you see nothing wrong with your country arming a Marxist thug like Aristide too. What an embarassment.
"A mystery alright."
It is indeed a mystery how people like you can come up with such illogic yet still manage to figure out how to connect to the internet. Did GUIs help?
Paul
"It is indeed a mystery how people like you can come up with such illogic yet still manage to figure out how to connect to the internet."
It must be only you who fails to appreciate the irony that someone who claims - with of course absolutely no justification whatsoever - to be the second coming of Jesus - accuses others of a lack of logic!
By the way, why don't you introduce us to some of the so-called 'intelligent' people who believe in the myth of message 666?? It will be fun testing out their intelligence (if they even exist).
Paul
I really wonder if you will ever understand my point about oil. The fact that you still keep going on about its fungibility proves that you don't. That has nothing to do with it (it would only be valid if there was a permanent unlimited supply, which there is not). At some time in the future oil will begin to run out. At that time, it will be very important for America to be able to secure the oil it needs. It will therefore be of vital importance for it to be able to control as much as possible of the oil supply. If Saddam or his descendants were in charge of Iraq, it would not be able to do so. Now it can. Do you finally begin to understand, even vaguely, even dimly? The US will have enormous bases in Iraq for the foreseeable future and will be able to continue to control what happens there.
"They are in no more of a position to control the Iraqi government than they are of controlling the Australian government."
Total nonsense. If the Americans want to send people to Iraq, they go ahead and do it. They don't have to get permission or visas, they go straight through the airport, straight through Baghdad into the Green Zone or wherever with no formalities whatsoever. But of course the US has a carte blanche to do that in Australia too, doesn't it?
Paul
This sounds just like Australia, doesn't it!
"A US military transport plane regularly lifts off from Amman in Jordan and lands at the "American side" of Baghdad's international airport. This is the Baghdad shuttle: no visas required, no need to show a passport to any Iraqi official. For embassy staff, contractors, and other civilians working for the occupation it is the perfect beeline into the "other Iraq", the set of vast US-controlled compounds where Iraq's real power resides. If you have access to a helicopter, you can be whisked aloft from Baghdad airport to your final destination in the Green Zone in 10 minutes. For less important people, the trip to the Green Zone entails overland travel, a 30-minute ride in an armour-plated US bus called a Rhino. On this trip you cannot avoid spotting a few Iraqis, but in your sealed vehicle you still do not need to notify any locals of your arrival in their country.
These high-handed arrangements apply even more starkly to VIPs. US congressmen and senators, the secretaries of state and defense and other cabinet ministers, and of course the vice-president and president of the United States land in Baghdad without even the formality of an invitation. In no other country of the world are foreign leaders able to show up at whim. In Iraq, they can.
Many of these high-level visitors proceed to lecture their "hosts" on how to run the country. In the best imperial manner, they recommend who to sack from the cabinet, and who to appoint. They insist on certain laws being passed or demand changes in the constitution.
They even tell elected Iraqi leaders to resign, as I witnessed on April 3 2006. The scene was Iraqi prime minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's office deep in the Green Zone. . . ."
Read on here:
http://tinyurl.com/25dbvd
Hi Bruno! Great comment as always. I heard the story about the 5 million dollar offer to the Iraqi parliamentarians if they vote for the oil law, on an alternative news show here called INN World Report. Thanks for providing a link on it.
These nitwits (paul and nonadas) are representative of the self righteous aggression of our current US, Israeli, and to a lesser extent UK leadership. They also sound almost identical on foreign policy to the most hard-line neocon christian zionists.
I was supposed to be laid off for three weeks, but am working even though our plant is not doing production and most of the workforce is off. It's good not having to deal with unemployment but I had a lot planned as I had figured to be off for two of the three weeks. So I don't have that extra time to look things up on the internet like I thought that I would.
Still am trying to find that story from last summer or spring about the Texas federal prosecutor who was abusing detained boys. It's out there!
Wow. Way too much to try to respond to and don't have the energy.
Paul, you should know better than to try to explain fungibility or other such economic principles to a Socialist. It is the same as trying to convince the hardcore Christian Right to consider, much less understand, the science of evolution. They are not about to start down that slippery slope because it would threaten their faith in their dogma.
It looks pretty clear to me that McCain is going to be our next president. It will become painfully obvious in the general election that Hillary is yesterday's damaged goods.
Hope McCain is up to the up to the job. He is a full-fledged hawk on national defense, and I will support him for that reason alone, despite any other misgivings about his age, lack of executive experience, and lack of free market economic credentials.
I just hope Bush doesn't sabotage McCain's chances by drawing down the Surge too soon this summer, just in time for the general election in November. I'm still searching military history for which successful general advocated victory by drawing down troops in the middle of a successful military operation. Seems the only winners I can find are those that held the line until the job was finished!
There are some great reports on Iraq on the web. Michael Yon is reporting that the final showdown with AQ is under way in Mosul, and that it should be pretty decisive. There is also an excellent article by Max Boot, which provides a more somber report about conditions there, and concludes that it is still vital for American troops to stay for a while longer. The government apparently has yet to understand democracy, and is more interested in hording power in the hands of Shia theocrats.
It will be a bumpy but wildly exciting ride as Iraq approaches its next parliamentary elections, which I believe are supposed to take place in 2009? This grand experiment in how people in the ME will choose to govern themselves when given free elections, and who they will chose for their leaders, will play out in dramatic fashion in front of the world.
I will continue to pray that they choose more wisely this time around.
Batman
Regarding oil, I wonder which part of my last post on the subject you don't understand? Fungibility is a complete red-herring when it comes to a declining resource. Surely you understand that??
"I will continue to pray that they choose more wisely this time around."
Don't worry about that. Even if they don't, the US will make sure that they do (at least in the unlikely event that McCain is in charge).
Foddy,
"It must be only you who fails to appreciate the irony"
It's you that fails to appreciate the irony, Foddy. You're as blind as a bat.
"that someone who claims - with of course absolutely no justification whatsoever - to be the second coming of Jesus"
Wrong. The complete justification is there. You're just too stupid and too immoral to understand it.
"accuses others of a lack of logic!"
You do have a lack of logic, Foddy, which is why you don't dare challenge my logic and instead resort to logical fallacies.
"By the way, why don't you introduce us to some of the so-called 'intelligent' people who believe in the myth of message 666??"
We've already been there, Foddy. You insisted they didn't exist, and when a few of them posted messages here, instead of apologizing and admitting you were wrong, you moved the goalposts.
"It will be fun testing out their intelligence (if they even exist)."
Not only have you moved the goalposts, you've denied that the goalposts even exist.
"I really wonder if you will ever understand my point about oil."
I really wonder if you will admit to lying and fantasizing.
"The fact that you still keep going on about its fungibility proves that you don't."
No Foddy. It proves that you don't.
"That has nothing to do with it (it would only be valid if there was a permanent unlimited supply, which there is not)."
Wrong Foddy. No resource on earth has a permanent unlimited supply. Fungible does not mean that there is a permanent unlimited supply.
"At some time in the future oil will begin to run out."
Ok, so we've gone from Bush stealing oil, to Bush controlling oil, to some future US government in 50 years time going to commit some crime. Is that your new goalposts, Foddy? I don't know what's going to happen in 50 years time. I would hope that there were no US troops anywhere on the planet except the US, and that Iraq leads a NATO which comprises the entire planet. I'm not going to argue with you about what crimes may be committed by other people in the future. You made claims about Bush's motives, with not a scrap of evidence, and not a single pro-war person who held a similar position to provide even a modicum of data. My goal is not to prevent imaginary crimes by the US 50 years from now. My goal is to stop real crimes, right now. Go and ask some pro-war people and see what their motives are.
"At that time, it will be very important for America to be able to secure the oil it needs."
It'll be important for the entire planet. So, is the reason why Bush invaded Iraq exactly the same reason that Chirac opposed invading Iraq, given that both countries are reliant on oil, and may well be in 50 years time? Or is it a sign that your theory is fundamentally flawed, especially when you actually go and collect data from pro-war people?
"It will therefore be of vital importance for it to be able to control as much as possible of th
the oil supply."
EVEN THEN, in that HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO, America will also be dependent on trade with China etc and will want to ensure that China has oil too. And so will the other countries who want to sell things to Americans want America to be able to continue to function. This also applies to gold, silicon or any other resource used by industry. That's what globalization is all about. AND EVEN THEN, all that will do is put the price of oil up, and America will just have to pay whatever current prices are, just like everyone else.
"If Saddam or his descendants were in charge of Iraq, it would not be able to do so. Now it can."
Wrong. In either case, it has equal ability to force a change in oil supplies. All it needs to do is invade the country and put a gun to the head of the leader. It can do this at any time, no matter which leader is in charge. Hell, it doesn't even need to do that. All it needs to do is put sanctions on the country. You can't run a modern country without trade. And it can do all this to Canada too. There's nothing special about Iraq.
"Do you finally begin to understand, even vaguely, even dimly?"
It's you that needs to dimly understand that you live in a completely contrived fantasy world.
"The US will have enormous bases in Iraq for the foreseeable future"
Unlikely. Again, go and ask the pro-war people whether they want to keep bases in an ungrateful country like Iraq. I dare you. Ask nonadas.
"and will be able to continue to control what happens there."
They don't even control it now, except in your fantasy world. Nevermind when they have vastly drawn down troops so that it's similar to Kosovo or Australia or France.
PE:"They are in no more of a position to control the Iraqi government than they are of controlling the Australian government."
"Total nonsense."
No it isn't, Foddy. It's the crap that you spew that is nonsense.
"If the Americans want to send people to Iraq, they go ahead and do it."
Yes, as per agreement with Iraq.
"They don't have to get permission or visas, they go straight through the airport, straight through Baghdad into the Green Zone or wherever with no formalities whatsoever."
So? That's the temporary agreement, and has nothing to do with control either.
"But of course the US has a carte blanche to do that in Australia too, doesn't it?"
If it uses violence, it certainly can. There's not a damn thing we can do to stop them. We can try, but we will ultimately lose. It's simple maths.
"In the best imperial manner, they recommend who to sack from the cabinet, and who to appoint."
Osama bin Laden and you and I make recommendations to America too. It's part of freedom of speech, not imperialism.
"They insist on certain laws being passed or demand changes in the constitution."
They do no such thing. They lobby like everyone else is free to do in a democracy.
"They even tell elected Iraqi leaders t
to resign, as I witnessed on April 3 2006."
No, they ask. And most of what "you" witness is actually complete fabrications about motives and feelings which "you" deduced by projection, not because you bothered to actually ask the people involved.
Just like you lefties never thought it was necessary to ask the Iraqis who they wanted to be their president. You always pretended to speak on their behalf and that they didn't want western democracy (you know this because you don't want it yourself), that they wanted socialist dictatorship (you again).
"Don't worry about that. Even if they don't, the US will make sure that they do"
You're projecting again, Foddy. You have no evidence of McCain, nor any pro-war person wanting to ram an American dictator down the throats of the Iraqis, but you know that that's what you want to do, so you project it on to others. The one thing you'll never get is that some people like exporting freedom. And by freedom, we don't mean a socialist dictator.
Paul
"It's you that needs to dimly understand that you live in a completely contrived fantasy world."
Perhaps the greatest of all your ironies, coming from someone who believes that we are all living in a computer simulation! How much more contrived and fantastic can you get!!
"We've already been there, Foddy. You insisted they didn't exist, and when a few of them posted messages here, instead of apologizing and admitting you were wrong, you moved the goalposts."
Total f.....g crap, if you will excuse the language. A couple of people who could hardly speak English posted a couple of messages here, and NONE of them stayed around to demonstrate their intelligence or lack of it. Not a single one stayed around to argue your case. Go on, bring just one back who has the intelligence to argue with me about it. No? I thought not. You'll just make some more excuses. If you want me to bring more people here to argue with you, I'm quite happy to do so.
"Osama bin Laden and you and I make recommendations to America too. It's part of freedom of speech, not imperialism."
Oh dear, how little you understand in your ivory tower. You and I and Bin Laden can make recommendations until we're blue in the face and get nowhere. The US (with hundreds of thousands of armed men in the country) can make recommendations and get them accepted. And I see you've done an about face on your comparison of Iraq with Australia, now agreeing that the US CAN get things done in Iraq which it can't in Australia.
"They insist on certain laws being passed or demand changes in the constitution."
They do no such thing. They lobby like everyone else is free to do in a democracy."
Yes, just like the US flies people into Australia uninvited and unannounced, without them having to pass immigration, and wheels them in to browbeat the government! I'd forgotten about that.
Fortunately your government - IN YOUR NAME - is now distancing itself from the horrific Bush administration and - IN YOUR NAME - considering to withdraw troops from Iraq, and - IN YOUR NAME - intending to apologise to the Aborigines. That's what so great about democracy. The people elect a government to act in their name.
Paul
Finally, I always have to smile when you claim to using logic, when that logic includes reliance on the mediaeval mumbo jumbo of the significance of the number 666. Any scientist trying to do that would be laughed out of the room. And you know it.
Yea right, Foddy. if we're only there to steal (or control) the oil, then why are wasting so many precious American lives trying to provide security for Iraqis when we could just bomb them all to hell?
And why are we wasting so much time and money and risking looking incompetent trying to help Iraqis put together a democracy, and supporting democratic candidates, when all we really need to do is silence them all?
And if we are directing who their leaders are, then why in the Hell did we allow them to vote for a bunch of incompetent, Iran-aligned, theocrats, that oppose democratic power sharing?
And again, last time I checked, Iraq was selling oil at world market prices and expecting to reap a huge windfall for its 2008 budget. How is it not better that the oil wealth is being shared to improve the lives of 30 million Iraqis instead of one meglomaniac using it to build enormous palaces for himself and rape and torture rooms for his psychotic sons, and turn the country into one huge weapons and ammunition dump to fight his neighbors?
Exactly how far out in the future do you anticipate that the U.S. will begin forcing Iraq to begin selling its oil below the market price? Surely you understand that until that day comes, who is selling oil to whom is irrelevant where the price is set by a world-wide free market exchange in a fungible commodity.
And who do you think is going to stop John McCain from being elected President? I don't necessarily think he is the best person, but I don't see anybody in a position to stop him.
In perfect hindsight, the two huge mistakes that the U.S. made in Iraq were (1) not sending in enough troops to secure the country, and (2) allowing Shia theocrats and their thug militias too much power to derail our work to build a democracy.
We should never have allowed the Shia to dictate to us that the entire existing army and bureaucracy be disbanded, and every former Baath party member excluded from service, thus, disenfranchising Sunnis and inviting them to join up with AQ.
We should never have allowed the Shia theocrats to fill the early police ranks with their militia death squads to facilitate them seeking revenge, further dividing the country.
We should have never agreed with the Shia theocrats (and the screwballs at the U.N) to that fucked up system of voting for national parties, which was perfectly designed and implemented to hand power to a handful of unrepresentative Shia theocrats. Instead, we should have insisted on requiring individuals standing that are accountable to their constituencies.
We should have taken a heavier hand in drafting their constitution for them, to provide for provincial elections and shared powers, and for an independent judiciary with power to check abuses by the elected government, among several missing features that have proven essential to successful democracy.
But then again, the reason we didn't stand our ground on the big democracy-building issues is because we didn't have enough troops there to hold the Shia and their militias in their place. I hope our next leader doesn't make the same mistake. Bring back Powell's Overwhelming Force Doctrine. I would especially like to see it applied in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But then, our political leaders are more interested in purchasing expensive high-tech toys then paying enlisted men to get the job done. And don't even get me started on the weak-kneed Europeans!
"A completely woman was being d, and you called her a subhuman bitch?"
Yes. Do you know why? Because she picked up a gun and shot her liberaters.
"If you were God, and you heard someone say something like that, what would you do?"
Well, If I was God first of all I wouldn't have given the middle east over to such animals as the Muslims and I wouldn't have populated the civilized world with so many dumb sh1ts like buh and bruno.
"How would you track down the pigs when you have 90% or whatever of Europeans anti-war, and 50% of your own country anti-war?"
You got me there. I don't know what to do with all these asswipes with their conspiracy beliefs.
"So, when you see this inconsistency, what would a rational actor do? Answer - become an atheist and not allow this superstituous nonsense interfere with fixing the world."
Actually, I think my beliefs are best described as deism.
"If you want to protect women from being d, and Moore's fat arse is in the way, what should you do?"
In Moore's case he is trying to withhold and cover up the evidense, which is a crime.
"how do you distinguish good Muslims from bad Christians? You clearly can't just ask "what's your religion?". So, your answer is?"
Your question seems to be along the lines of how many Muslims do I identify as "bad". That's the wrong question to ask. The correct question would be.....
How many of these 1.4 billion muzzys support and condone violence and terrorism? Off the cuff I would say about half with most of the rest giving moral support while not engaging in terrorism themselves. The majority of muzzys are uneducated emotional animals. Like this:
http://www.boulder.net/~mondo/riot.jpg
They are easily manipulated to violence by the Islamofacists. Take a good look at buh, one of their western propaganda victims. Or riverbend. Sure they can read and write and may have some education, but they are just as delusional and deranged as the scum in the picture. If there is a moderate side to Islam, I have yet to see it.
"What exactly is this "ideology" that makes Ali Fadhil a wonderful Iraqi and Riverbend such scum?"
That's easy. Riverbend is islamist scum. Ali Fadhil evolved and posesses the capability of rational, sane thinking. Something several commentators right here lack.
"Arm the good minority and kill the vast majority."
Problem is that people like Alaa, Omar and Muhammad are good people, not genocidal monsters. They don't want to kill people and probably don't want to kill murderous animals either.
"The various polls are available at:"
Well that's wonderful if 88% of Afghans can support us. Maybe we can work with these people....
Also, you sure owned that anonymous loser with his "power to Afghan people" crap. People like him don't give a crap about the Afghans or truth. He wouldn't even give a name what an fn loser coward. That waste of humanity doesn
"The various polls are available at:"
Well that's wonderful if 88% of Afghans can support us. Maybe we can work with these people....
Also, you sure owned that anonymous loser with his "power to Afghan people" crap. People like him don't give a crap about the Afghans or truth. He wouldn't even give a name what an fn loser coward. That waste of humanity doesn't deserve to live. I bet he is a typical delusional Muscum.
"They don't speak with one voice. Stop grouping the good with the bad."
Sorry, but for the most part it's true. Try reading through some of buh's "muzzys hate USA" links sometime. Thats what the majority of those scum think.
"Just that there's some who will protect you"
Let's get them all to Canada like Alaa then.......
"I like to be challenged by someone who is going to debate using logic instead of logical fallacies."
Thank you. I will also complement you on your logic skills, but anyone can look like a genius when you have a bunch of delusional 9/11 denying losers. I don't know how you can stand having these idiots spewing their deranged lies all over your comments. Your truly a strong, knowledgable person if you can continue to fight these morons.
"If Saddam or his descendants were in charge of Iraq, it would not be able to do so. Now it can."
--------------------
It is a sad testament to Foddy's BDS that no sentence would be too harsh for the backwards people of the ME, including living under Saddam's "descendants" for all of eternity, so long as America can't be seen to be right about anything it does.
Foddy's position on oil would be much stronger if he only knew that to this day, America controls the export of beer and Wiener schnitzel from occupied Germany, sushi and karate movies from occupied Japan, dogmeat from occupied South Korea, and falafel due to our permanent bases in Turkey. Shhhh. Nobody tell him.
Foddy,
PE:"It's you that needs to dimly understand that you live in a completely contrived fantasy world."
"Perhaps the greatest of all your ironies, coming from someone who believes that we are all living in a computer simulation!"
That is the most likely explanation. What explanation do you have for the nature of universe, Foddy? The origins of the universe are beyond the ability to be scientifically analyzed.
"How much more contrived and fantastic can you get!!"
I said it is a hypothesis and provide a logical explanation. You on the other hand create a hypothesis about Bush, insist that it's the absolute truth with zero evidence or logic, and when you do have the ability to analyze the motives of the pro-war in general, you refuse to actually ASK them, preferring to believe your fantasies. You can't tell the difference of course.
PE:"We've already been there, Foddy. You insisted they didn't exist, and when a few of them posted messages here, instead of apologizing and admitting you were wrong, you moved the goalposts."
"Total f.....g crap"
No it isn't. That's exactly what happened.
"A couple of people who could hardly speak English posted a couple of messages here"
And when they did, you refused to admit you were wrong.
"and NONE of them stayed around to demonstrate their intelligence or lack of it."
That's you moving the goalposts, like I said, Foddy. You said that they didn't exist. You now know they exist, but refuse to admit you were wrong.
"Not a single one stayed around to argue your case."
Moving goalposts. I never said they were good debaters in a foreign language.
"Go on, bring just one back who has the intelligence to argue with me about it."
Moving goalposts. Even if I bring an intelligent person to argue with you, none of them have the debating skills that I do, and if you don't accept that I'm far more intelligent than you, you're hardly going to admit that these people are either.
"No? I thought not. You'll just make some more excuses."
It's you that has a long line of excuses to avoid challenging your worldview.
"If you want me to bring more people here to argue with you, I'm quite happy to do so."
I already know the world is full of idiots. You're quite sufficient on that score.
"Oh dear, how little you understand in your ivory tower."
It's you that doesn't understand.
"You and I and Bin Laden can make recommendations until we're blue in the face and get nowhere."
As is everyone else. Most people do what they want themselves.
"The US (with hundreds of thousands of armed men in the country)"
Armed men helping enforce IRAQI law, not US law.
"can make recommendations and get them accepted."
No they can't. The Iraqi government is an independent actor. The case you are talking about, it was Iraqi politicians who were asking for Jafaari to step down as he was a controversial figure. The US asked the UI
UIA to compromise.
"And I see you've done an about face on your comparison of Iraq with Australia, now agreeing that the US CAN get things done in Iraq which it can't in Australia."
I didn't do an about face. You said that the US was in a position to control the Iraqis, and I said that was crap, same as it is in Australia. The debate was not about the personnel arrangements for kinetic operations which only exist in Iraq, not Australia. That's just your red herring.
"Yes, just like the US flies people into Australia uninvited and unannounced, without them having to pass immigration, and wheels them in to browbeat the government!"
The former part is irrelevant, and the latter part happens everywhere. Australia browbeats the US over subsidized wheat too. Hell, even over our terrorist scum.
"Fortunately your government - IN YOUR NAME - is now distancing itself from the horrific Bush administration and - IN YOUR NAME - considering to withdraw troops from Iraq, and - IN YOUR NAME - intending to apologise to the Aborigines."
It's not in my name, Foddy. Ask me for my opinions and you can find out what my opinions are.
"The people elect a government to act in their name."
I didn't elect that government. My arsehole neighbour did.
"Finally, I always have to smile when you claim to using logic, when that logic includes reliance on the mediaeval mumbo jumbo of the significance of the number 666."
What do you mean "reliance"? Most of my logic does not rely on that. That's just going an extra step, and 666 is a cultural fact, it's not logic.
"Any scientist trying to do that would be laughed out of the room. And you know it."
Any intelligent scientist should be able to understand all the logic that leads up to the contents of message 666, rather than the number itself. And the subsequent actions afterwards.
Taking into account the number 666 itself is a bit like watching a person win the lottery 10 times in a row and then realising this is outside the normal bounds of statistical chance and realising there is a phenomenon to be investigated.
Batman, "In perfect hindsight, the two huge mistakes that the U.S. made in Iraq were"
No huge mistakes were made. Probably not even minor mistakes from the government. Unless you want to count failing to start a Manhattan Project, Bush failing to convert to Islam after I did, things like that.
"(1) not sending in enough troops to secure the country"
There were many reasons for not sending large numbers of troops:
1. To lower the barrier to future war by demonstrating you don't need a large number of troops.
2. To make it clear to the Iraqi people that they were not being conquered - there were insufficient troops for anything but a liberation. This may have been what made the Iraqis sign up to the new security forces rather than attack the US - no-one has the ability to rerun history to find out their reaction - what we know is that the method actually chosen, worked.
3. To create a security vacuum forcing the Iraqis to organize force in some way to take care of the criminals in their midst rather than only organizing force to attack the US.
4. To find out what Arab Muslims genuinely want to do when there is no-one at all controlling them. Do they go on a raping spree or does their religion make them extremely moral actors? Watching Al Sadr's goons in action was vital - what was motivating those people to pick up a gun and follow Sadr?
"(2) allowing Shia theocrats and their thug militias too much power to derail our work to build a democracy."
Neither of these parties had any effect. The Iraqi people approved both the constitution and the parliament. If you don't like that, you need to instead say "allowing moronic Iraqis to vote in a democracy".
"We should never have allowed the Shia to dictate to us that the entire existing army and bureaucracy be disbanded"
They didn't. It was a wise US decision. We had no idea whether it was possible to turn them into a democracy and be "normal". The best chance of making it work was to give them western-style institutions and see if they would accept them. THEY DID. They GENUINELY supported their new security forces and did NOT see them as tainted by the crimes of the past security forces and reject them. IT BLOODY WORKED. A lot of people said that this impossible feat couldn't be done. Hell, a lot of people like Foddy continue to insist that the feat hasn't even been pulled off, rather than challenge their worldview.
"and every former Baath party member excluded from service, thus, disenfranchising Sunnis and inviting them to join up with AQ."
These were always a minor technical problem. The big problem was whether you could get the majority to accept democratic elections while under occupation, and sign up to security forces, and go against Al Jazeera, etc etc. IT BLOODY WORKED.
"We should never have allowed the Shia theocrats to fill the early police ranks with their militia death squads to facilitate them seeking revenge, further dividing the
country."
It was important to get some people into the security forces. They could always be dismissed at a later date. Better than having the whole country in arms against the occupiers (which is what you would normally expect with a foreign invasion - what would happen if the USSR invaded USA?).
Regardless, the country always required dividing - into good and bad. You didn't really expect 100% of Iraqis to welcome us as liberators, did you?
"We should have never agreed with the Shia theocrats (and the screwballs at the U.N) to that fucked up system of voting for national parties, which was perfectly designed and implemented to hand power to a handful of unrepresentative Shia theocrats."
They're not unrepresentative. Your complaint is with the Iraqi people, no-one else. This is democracy. If you want to replace democracy with a rational, humanist, non-subjugating ruler like Paul Bremer, we can have that debate if you want. It's a really dumb idea though. We would have missed vital experimental data needed to wrap up Al Qaeda. Message 666 would never have been written.
"Instead, we should have insisted on requiring individuals standing that are accountable to their constituencies."
Not every democracy is the same as the US, nor does it need to be. Australia's senate is elected via a list. Regardless, the Iraqi people chose their electoral system. By a large number.
"We should have taken a heavier hand in drafting their constitution for them"
If you want to force something down the throats of the Iraqi people, you need to change a whole slew of things, and you will be in a load of trouble. You will have to fight the Iraqi people, a fight that until now has been avoided.
"to provide for provincial elections and shared powers"
They already have this.
"and for an independent judiciary with power to check abuses by the elected government"
And this.
"among several missing features that have proven essential to successful democracy."
Where is your evidence that these things are missing? I think the independent judiciary is even described in their constitution. I remember reading about provincial elections too. Can't remember when they were/will be held.
"But then again, the reason we didn't stand our ground on the big democracy-building issues is because we didn't have enough troops there to hold the Shia and their militias in their place."
It's the other way around. The reason a small number of troops were sent were to make it clear to the Iraqi people that nothing at all - NOTHING AT ALL - was being forced upon them, and hopefully getting them to believe it and do what they really wanted to do (so we could see what that was). EVEN THEN, half of the Iraqi people believe that the US is somehow controlling Iraq. They have the same evidence that Foddy has - projection.
"I hope our next leader doesn't make the same mistake. Bring back Powell's Overwhelming Force Doctrine."
Tha
That doctrine is expensive and increases the barrier to war, meaning that the US doesn't go to war when it should be. And that is ultimately far more dangerous. The doctrine that is required as much as possible is the one that was employed in Afghanistan. Extremely successful, extremely cheap. Powell's doctrine is fundamentally flawed as Afghanistan in particular showed.
"I would especially like to see it applied in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Again, in both countries, the US has organized for Afghans to kill Afghans and Pakistanis to kill Pakistanis. That is great use of resources.
"But then, our political leaders are more interested in purchasing expensive high-tech toys then paying enlisted men to get the job done."
They are doing both, as fast as possible and as strategically as possible.
nonadas
PE:"A completely innocent woman was being raped, and you called her a subhuman bitch?"
"Yes. Do you know why? Because she picked up a gun and shot her liberaters."
And when God says to you that the insurgents were about 0.1% of the population, and almost all male, what are you going to reply?
PE:"If you were God, and you heard someone say something like that, what would you do?"
"Well, If I was God first of all I wouldn't have given the middle east over to such animals as the Muslims and I wouldn't have populated the civilized world with so many dumb sh1ts like buh and bruno."
Ok, yes, as a human you can indeed blame God for the mess. However, when God says that he deliberately did that to test you - to see if you would be goaded into action by the rape of a woman - even a woman of different race/religion/nationality - a brown woman - what will you say then?
PE:"How would you track down the pigs when you have 90% or whatever of Europeans anti-war, and 50% of your own country anti-war?"
"You got me there. I don't know what to do with all these asswipes with their conspiracy beliefs."
Well the first thing to note is that a foreign country like Australia had roughly 50% support for the war, while another foreign country like say Belgium, only had 10% support. What's the difference between Belgium and Australia? And furthermore, what's the difference between one half of Australians and the other half? Even families were divided. Of course it would all be a moot point if 90% of Iraqis jumped for joy at liberation. But only 50% of them did. So, by what method would a scientist go about determining the extremely different positions on such a fundamental topic as to whether 27 million slaves should be freed or not? There was only one thing for it - analyze the Iraqi people via the Iraqi blogs and try to figure out from them why they supported liberation and then armed with that data, bounce it off the anti-war Australians to find out what logic they were using. THIS was the correct response for a rational, moral actor - find out what logic was being used that ended with "and that's why Saddam should have been able to rape women for as long as he felt like it".
PE:"So, when you see this inconsistency, what would a rational actor do? Answer - become an atheist and not allow this superstituous nonsense interfere with fixing the world."
"Actually, I think my beliefs are best described as deism."
Ok, deism was always a possibility. Even when I was an atheist, I never closed off that possibility. I just thought it was unlikely as it didn't seem very logical. If you had tried to spread deism, and explain to people that God didn't interfere in the world and you needed to act yourself, and atheists are just as good as Christians, and that the former don't go to Hell while the latter universally go to Heaven, that would have been fine.
PE:"If you want to protect women from being raped, and
Moore's fat arse is in the way, what should you do?"
"In Moore's case he is trying to withhold and cover up the evidense, which is a crime."
He's using freedom of speech, which is not a crime. He has equal voting rights to you. You can't assassinate 150 million Americans, especially not for using their freedom of speech. The only option I can see open to you is to debate with them until you're blue in the face. You need them to vote Republican (or get the Democrats to change their position).
"how do you distinguish good Muslims from bad Christians? You clearly can't just ask "what's your religion?". So, your answer is?"
You didn't answer this question. A Muslim may be good, a Christian may be bad. How are you going to determine which one is which?
"How many of these 1.4 billion muzzys support and condone violence and terrorism? Off the cuff I would say about half with most of the rest giving moral support while not engaging in terrorism themselves."
Very few engage in terrorism themselves. 88% of Afghans even support US troops in their country, nevermind engaging in terrorism.
"The majority of muzzys are uneducated emotional animals."
The Afghans are uneducated. Including most of the 88% of them that support US troops.
"Sure they can read and write and may have some education, but they are just as delusional and deranged as the scum in the picture."
So comparing Riverbend to Afghans, the problem isn't even education.
"If there is a moderate side to Islam, I have yet to see it."
Sufism? Alaa (Shia)? I'm a Muslim, but I wouldn't characterize myself as moderate.
"That's easy. Riverbend is islamist scum. Ali Fadhil evolved and posesses the capability of rational, sane thinking."
Well, now we're getting somewhere. It's not Muslims that you hate. It's irrational people? And just by coincidence, a majority of Muslims are irrational? So your enemy is not Muslims, it's irrational people? What is the solution to this? Who do you want to fight? Do you want to fight DOGMA? Be it Karl Marx's book, the bible, or the Quran?
PE:"Arm the good minority and kill the vast majority."
"Problem is that people like Alaa, Omar and Muhammad are good people, not genocidal monsters. They don't want to kill people and probably don't want to kill murderous animals either."
That's not true. They support funding an army to wipe out the terrorists. If you make any one of these people the president of Iraq, they will organize for the terrorists to be killed. I can remember early on that the blogger behind "Healing Iraq" was incensed that the US had taken away the death penalty.
"Well that's wonderful if 88% of Afghans can support us. Maybe we can work with these people."
And you need to ask yourself - why 88% of Afghans but only 50% of Iraqis? How the hell did the Afghans become smarter than Iraqis? Answering questions like this is exactly what a rational, moral actor should be
doing.
PE:"They don't speak with one voice. Stop grouping the good with the bad."
"Sorry, but for the most part it's true."
What's true is that you're grouping the good with the bad.
"Try reading through some of buh's "muzzys hate USA" links sometime. Thats what the majority of those scum think."
Which poll are you referring to? I've shown you the Afghan poll. Certainly a poll in somewhere like Saudi Arabia would be totally different. And that's a bloodbath waiting to happen. But the point remains. You need to distinguish between good and bad, not lump all Muslims (including me) together.
PE:"Just that there's some who will protect you"
"Let's get them all to Canada like Alaa then."
That is not the solution. The solution is to kill (or reform) Alaa's homeland. It is not practical to extract every good Iraqi from Iraq and ensure that you're only leaving bad people there (and that the bad people won't have any good kids).
PE:"I like to be challenged by someone who is going to debate using logic instead of logical fallacies."
"Thank you. I will also complement you on your logic skills, but anyone can look like a genius when you have a bunch of delusional 9/11 denying losers."
Note that I was talking about you challenging my "God delusion", not you challenging the "9/11 delusioners".
"I don't know how you can stand having these idiots spewing their deranged lies all over your comments."
It's the free marketplace of ideas. At the end of the day, you need to find a way to defeat these people, because they control the armed forces of Australia and various other countries and may control America's in January 2009. No-one knows for sure.
"Your truly a strong, knowledgable person if you can continue to fight these morons."
The freedom of millions of people across the globe is at stake. Iranians having their eyes cut out by their own government. And it's not just Muslims. We've got Zimbabweans and North Koreans waiting to be freed too. The stakes couldn't be higher. Tell me, if God was here on earth in human form, without superpowers (for whatever reason), what would you expect him to be doing? And why don't you just do that yourself?
"to provide for provincial elections and shared powers"
They already have this.
"and for an independent judiciary with power to check abuses by the elected government"
And this.
"among several missing features that have proven essential to successful democracy."
Where is your evidence that these things are missing? I think the independent judiciary is even described in their constitution. I remember reading about provincial elections too. Can't remember when they were/will be held.
-----------------
Paul, I appreciate your opinions on everything else, but I think you are wrong about the above. The only provincial elections were in January 2005 and Sunnis almost universally ignored that one, and don't have representative local leaders. New ones were supposed to be held immediately after the Maliki governement was established. Maliki has been repeatedly promising to do this, but has consistently failed, presumably because it would create competing, legitimate power centers among the Sunni population.
Also, I don't think the particulars of a Constitutional Court were ever worked out. Again, I don't think the core Shia want that kind of oversight or power sharing.
Most of the problems faced are the result of a hard core of Shia that are loath to accept power sharing in a true democratic system. Tyranny by the majority is not the same thing.
Interesting thing is, Maliki and his advisors have apparently even shut out SIIC to a large extent. They lost Sadr's support long ago. So he is not even representative of a majority anymore.
Anyway, it was to be expected to encounter such difficulties in the initial government. That's what no-confidence votes and new elections are for. Can't get here soon enough.
I also disagree with you strongly about the party list voting system. It may work for Australia and other countries, but it was obviously wrong for a divided Iraq. It was extremely foreseeable that this would exacerbate an already divided society.
If you live in rural Diyala, for example, who is YOUR representative in parliament? How do you go to his or her office and express your grievances with the national government? Do you go to the 27th person down on the Assoc of Muslim Scholar's list? What is your connection to the national government at all? What is the incentive of politicians to campaign or provide services to your particular, especially rural, community? None.
Other than the figureheads at the very top of the party list, all the others are much less representative of Iraqis than they would be if they were elected individually by districts. As it is, they are just riding on someone else's coattails. Nobody voted for them. Probably nobody even knows who most of them are.
Imagine, for example, if Americans were only allowed to vote for John McCain or Hillary Clinton. And THEY got to pick whatever lackeys from their respective parties that they wanted to fill both houses of Congress. What a stupid f'ing idea.
Batman
"Yea right, Foddy. if we're only there to steal (or control) the oil, then why are wasting so many precious American lives trying to provide security for Iraqis when we could just bomb them all to hell?"
Where did I ever say it was ONLY about the oil? Please quote me. And do you seriously think the US would have any credibility left whatsoever if just bombed the Iraqis to hell?
Batman
"Foddy's position on oil would be much stronger if he only knew that to this day, America controls the export of beer and Wiener schnitzel from occupied Germany, sushi and karate movies from occupied Japan, dogmeat from occupied South Korea, and falafel due to our permanent bases in Turkey. Shhhh. Nobody tell him."
You're right! I was forgetting that America couldn't survive without Japanese karate movies and Korean dogfood. If you're going to try to make an analogy, at least make it sensible.
Paul
"That is the most likely explanation. What explanation do you have for the nature of universe, Foddy? The origins of the universe are beyond the ability to be scientifically analyzed."
Fantastic! You are adopting the same argument as the idiotic creationists. Since they claim they can't see a scientific analysis for the origin of the universe, they attribute it to God. You attribute it to a computer simulation. But of course both you and the creationists have an agenda. They want to justify their belief in the existence of a Christian God; you want to believe that you are God. Both are wrong.
Paul
"You on the other hand create a hypothesis about Bush, insist that it's the absolute truth with zero evidence or logic, and when you do have the ability to analyze the motives of the pro-war in general, you refuse to actually ASK them, preferring to believe your fantasies."
Dear me, how ignorant you are in the ways of the world. The motives of the pro-war in general are entirely irrelevant. The motives of those who made the decisions are what count. And they have continuously changed the justification to meet the circumstances. Remember WMD? Don't hear much of them these days. Do you think that the pro-war would all have agreed with going to war if they had known that the evidene was trumped up? I don't think that even all of them would have gone so far.
I bet you believe these stories about Iranian motor boats threatening the US navy in international waters too, don't you?
"And when they did, you refused to admit you were wrong."
These people had such limited language skills it wasn't possible to check if they agreed with all your views or not. They seemed simplistic in the extreme (as are most believers in way-out religions).
Hi batman. I'm still waiting for you to tell me who the good economists are. It was asked under the last topic our host had graced us with. before his attack on Dr. King.
Also, now bush wants to slash medicare, making cuts bigger than he had proposed at some point last year. What about that great economy? Last month, we lost 17,000 jobs, not anything seassonally adjusted, just actual job loss. The meager gains that had been being made were probably almost all low paying service industry type jobs with no benefits anyway. This sub-prime housing crisis could lose a trillion or more, and sink us into a huge depression, all basically because of the greed of those who have way more than they need.
Lastly, you say, I guess, that we have elections here with more than two choices, such as the presidential election? Tell me who they will be? I remember in '04, bush and kerry were going to debate. The Green and Liberatarian party candidates tried to attend, but were stopped by security or the actual law? Why? Would this be too much democracy for us? I guess yes. They don't want those views getting out to the masses, and when I say they, I mean the media and the Washington establishment. They didn't even want Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul's views to get out. Might cause some unrest. Kerry said that he talked about health care before the last election, but the media ignored him on this issue. Don'asume that they, the candidates and the media, speak for very many.
paul, recently you mentioned your stay(s?) at mental institutions. None of my business, but you did bring it up, and in past comments as well.
Why do I mention this? Well, I suppose because of your god complex, but also some of your other behavior patterns.
I have no education in the field, but did work at a group home for mentally ill adults; as well as one for developmentally disabled adults, and two workshops for developmentally disabled adults, all in the '80s. The latter are also referred to as retarded by assholes in the population. I don't care if batman and fin S. H. one T. head nonadas call me retarded or not, I would just have them know that it is a derogatory word that would label people most likely less fortunate than them as inferior in a rather cruel and demeaning way.
Anyway, let's get back to you. In the group homes, I had to make sure everyone took their medications, record it, write up an incident report if they wouldn't take it, etc. For some clients I was required to actually see them swallow the pill before I could record that they took it. I'm no expert on medications, the only ones that I can remember by name are mellaril and haladol. One, mellaril, was to reducxe aggression, don't think you would need that, and I don't remember what haladol was for, but the people who I remember taking it were pretty out of it at times.
But, were you required to take medication? What was it, and did they tell you or did you know what it was for? Did it have side effects, and did you take anything for those? Were you supposed to keep taking them after being released? I'm jusat trying to determine why you would claim to be god, and then see that as something logical. Plus it's just odd the way that you talk down to people who disagree with you in the sort of athoritarian way that you employ, it reminds me of some CEO type dealing with the people under them.
buh, "But, were you required to take medication?"
Sort of. First time I was released it was voluntary, and I took the medication so that they could see that the logic persisted and the medication had no effect. The second time I was required to be on medication in order to get released (even though I was already voluntarily on it). This then reverted to voluntary, and after that I stopped. Throughout the time the doctors admitted that the medicine had no effect whatsoever. I told them they needed to defeat the logic, which they never seriously tried to do. One guy tried saying how bad Guantanamo was but didn't get very far after I pointed out that he seemed to be more concerned about terrorists in US jails than women being raped in Iraq.
"What was it, and did they tell you or did you know what it was for?"
They tried everything that they had. Solian, Zyprexa, Seroquel. Can't remember what else. None of it had any effect and we both knew that. One doctor wasn't quite sure whether I might be right or not, and said that if God really was talking to me, he guessed the medication wouldn't interfere with that.
"Did it have side effects"
Nope.
"Were you supposed to keep taking them after being released?"
Yep, which I did. I was happy to prove to the doctors that I had no medical condition and that they would have no effect. As usual, I was right, and the doctors were just more racist sociopaths.
"I'm jusat trying to determine why you would claim to be god, and then see that as something logical."
That's the conclusion after a long line of logic which I have already explained at length. If you want to debate a bit of that logic, let's have it. But the main problem with you is that you don't accept some basic premises such as Iraqi women have a right to not be raped, and that stopping the rape is a good thing, and you fabricate a hell of a lot more "facts". This completely interferes with the logica that a perfectly rational and moral entity would make.
"Plus it's just odd the way that you talk down to people who disagree with you in the sort of athoritarian way that you employ"
I never said I was gentle with illogical or immoral people. I demolish them.
"it reminds me of some CEO type dealing with the people under them."
When it comes to logic and morals, I am the world's CEO. I'll point out Bush's failings too. Message 666 is the culmination of 25 years of work. Most other humans are too stupid to even understand that work, nevermind do it themselves. It will take some time for the world to catch up. The first guy that proposed that the earth went around the sun was dead for centuries before someone else picked up the idea.
Foddy, "Fantastic! You are adopting the same argument as the idiotic creationists. Since they claim they can't see a scientific analysis for the origin of the universe, they attribute it to God."
With zero evidence. They don't actually add anything with their "then a miracle occurred" to their picture.
"You attribute it to a computer simulation."
I said it fits the MODEL of a computer simulation and that is the most LOGICAL explanation. Not definitive. It is possible that God really did twiddle his thumbs for 13 billion years watching amoeba grow.
"But of course both you and the creationists have an agenda. They want to justify their belief in the existence of a Christian God; you want to believe that you are God."
That's not an agenda, Foddy. My agenda was to liberate the world and I was hoping that an atheist would solve the riddle of what was making people not care about the rape of Iraqi women, so that stupid Christians would stop quoting Einstein as "proof" that there was a god. Actually discovering that I was God myself was not something I expected. It's just the way the simulation is designed.
"Both are wrong."
No Foddy, like everything else, it's you that are wrong. And the Christians are mostly wrong too.
"Dear me, how ignorant you are in the ways of the world."
No Foddy. It's just that you combine projection and fantasy, as always.
"The motives of the pro-war in general are entirely irrelevant."
No they're not, Foddy. If the US president goes against the public too much, he will lose the elections and his party's viability for years to come. And he was elected by the public precisely because he was in fact "one of them". He's not some special sub-species that non-sub-species vote in because they love sub-species ruling over them.
"The motives of those who made the decisions are what count."
They already told you their motives, but you prefer to substitute that for fantasy you just made up. And if you bother to ask the pro-war, you can see the sort of motives pro-war people have, and can make an intelligent analysis that what Bush states is his motives (and which require Congressional support too) are pretty much in line with what pro-war people say too.
"And they have continuously changed the justification to meet the circumstances. Remember WMD?"
WMD was one of the things I was after too, Foddy. Why do you think I want to concentrate on Iran next rather than Zimbabwe? I want to take out the scary weapons first. We'll come back and deal with the weaponless countries later. The idea is to kill as many birds with one stone as possible. You are either too stupid to understand this, or you understand it but pretend it isn't important, because you don't want the US to win.
"Don't hear much of them these days."
We found out long ago that Saddam unilaterally destroyed them in secret years ago, and the reason for his cagey manner was because of a cultural mi
misunderstanding.
"Do you think that the pro-war would all have agreed with going to war if they had known that the evidene was trumped up?"
I didn't believe a word of Powell's UN speech. I didn't believe it was possible to tell from a satellite image that a truck was carrying something nefarious. Yes, I wanted the war anyway. Go and ask some other pro-war people instead of making up crap about us.
"I don't think that even all of them would have gone so far."
You'll have to ask them specifically. I don't have polls showing that. However, what I do have is polls showing that even after the WMD were found to not be there, support for the Iraq war was high. ie people had other motives for going to war. If you go and ask them, you can find out what those motives were. You've got 3 people right here you can ask. But we know you don't want to collect real evidence like that, don't we? Because it will shatter your pathetic worldview.
"I bet you believe these stories about Iranian motor boats threatening the US navy in international waters too, don't you?"
Yes, I saw the video. And I saw the video of British soldiers being captured too. And I saw Iran giving GPS coordinates in Iraqi waters then changing their mind and providing a second set of inaccurate coordinates which were at least in Iranian waters.
PE:"And when they did, you refused to admit you were wrong."
"These people had such limited language skills it wasn't possible to check if they agreed with all your views or not."
Weasel. "all my views" was never part of the challenge. You said these people didn't exist, even though it isn't possible to prove a negative, and instead of admitting how wrong you were, like you always are, you weaseled and moved the goalposts.
"They seemed simplistic in the extreme (as are most believers in way-out religions)."
Moving the goalposts from "existing" to "not being simplistic as defined by a lying weaseling sociopath who fabricates conspiracy theories and calls anyone who doesn't believe in said conspiracy theories simplistic". Yes Foddy, on that score, you just might be right. Congratulations.
Batman, great, I get a break from the dreary process of debating left-wing lunatics.
B:"to provide for provincial elections and shared powers"
PE:"They already have this."
"The only provincial elections were in January 2005"
You just proved my point. They already have a system of provincial elections, which is what I heard about, and which you confirmed. What is the normal frequency of provincial elections? That's only 3 years ago. In my "province" we have elections every 4 years. I did a quick search and the Iraqi government is working on further legislation in this area. Your statement that Iraq is missing provincial elections is totally false. They have ALREADY HELD THEM and they are TALKING ABOUT NEW ONES. If they're the "essential ingredient" that is missing, that gap has already been plugged in Jan 2005 so you should be happy. As for the Sunnis boycotting provincial elections, so bloody what? That's entirely their problem, and maybe the next country that gets liberated will learn a lesson from that. If you boycott elections, don't come crying if the party you didn't like gets elected.
B:"and for an independent judiciary with power to check abuses by the elected government"
PE:"I think the independent judiciary is even described in their constitution."
"I don't think the particulars of a Constitutional Court were ever worked out."
I'm just going by their constitution, which I looked up:
"Article (19): 1st - The judiciary is independent, with no power above it other than the law."
I told you they had it. So again, what you claim (and I agree) is part of a modern democracy, is already there, entrenched in their constitution. I don't know what you are complaining about. Do you have information on Maliki violating the constitution? If so, did you report it to the Iraqi police and their free media?
"I don't think the core Shia want that kind of oversight (courts) or power sharing."
Doesn't matter a damn what "core Shia" want. That's Iraqi law as chosen by the Iraqi people. If anyone in Iraq is violating Iraqi law, please report it to the appropriate authorities.
"Most of the problems faced are the result of a hard core of Shia that are loath to accept power sharing in a true democratic system."
No they're not. Most of the problems faced are caused by Sunni religious bigots who reject having a non-Sunni PM.
"Tyranny by the majority is not the same thing."
Iraq is not remotely a tyranny. Not only are the Sunnis free to practise their religion, the Shiites even ignored the terrorist atrocities for a LONG time before resorting to that themselves, and not only that they have a national unity government which includes the very Sunnis you claim are disenfranchised! Plus the Kurds who are Sunnis too! If you're looking for a lack of power-sharing, try the US and Australia. Neither of us have national unity governments. We've got polarized electorate and the arsehole si
side have just taken over my country. If the decent Australians could have access to half the military in a power-sharing arrangement, that would be wonderful. Instead, it's winner take all.
Also, not only are the Sunnis free to practise their religion, they're even free to hold protests carrying Saddam's photo, and answer polls saying that they support attacks on US troops etc. Some "tyranny".
"Interesting thing is, Maliki and his advisors have apparently even shut out SIIC to a large extent. They lost Sadr's support long ago. So he is not even representative of a majority anymore."
Pardon? SIIC is which group? Maliki never personally represented a majority of Iraq. He was one party in one list which in turn was part of a national unity government with parties coming and going in protest.
"Anyway, it was to be expected to encounter such difficulties in the initial government. That's what no-confidence votes and new elections are for. Can't get here soon enough."
We've already had new elections. In Dec 2005. They more-or-less elected the same cretins they did in Jan 2005. Don't expect fresh elections to change anything. You need to deal with what you've already got. Yes, it will be fascinating to see if Alusi's share of the vote increases from 0.4% to 0.5% in the next elections. Well, maybe "fascinating" is overstating it a bit. Unless you have a plan to reeducate these numbskulls, which you should, but don't, it's going to take a long time to change. Decades probably, as they learn by osmosis. And we can see that osmosis is only enough to get 50% of Australians to care about brown women being raped. You need a better strategy than osmosis. You need message 666. From birth.
"I also disagree with you strongly about the party list voting system. It may work for Australia and other countries"
I never said I supported that system. Just that you can't go judging everyone through US lenses. I have noticed a painful tendency amongst Americans to insist that they have the very best political system and any slight deviation from that (including the right to blast your neighbour with an RPG) is a sign of being a slave under a tyranny.
"but it was obviously wrong for a divided Iraq."
There is no such "obvious" thing at all. Where's your controlled experiment that allowed you to arrive at that conclusion? What measure did you use to find out what is "right"?
"It was extremely foreseeable that this would exacerbate an already divided society."
Nothing at all was forseeable, not even for the Iraqis themselves. I chatted with length with Ali Fadhil and he told me that it wasn't until 2005 that he found out what the Iraqi people really thought. Previously they had refused to give a political opinion to him. One of the most important things was to get those elections in 2005 so that we could find out what the Iraqi people really wanted.
"If you live in rural Diyala, for example, who is YOUR rep
representative in parliament?"
Well I live in NSW, and my local member just does whatever the cabinet tells him to do, otherwise he gets kicked out of the party. When I have a complaint I write to the Prime Minister and get a response from someone else. No point writing to my local member, he's just going to defer to the senior management. His personal view is irrelevant. He's outvoted. I did ring up my local member to complain about glass on the footpath, and she told me to rack off. But I didn't vote for her, I voted for the party anyway.
"How do you go to his or her office and express your grievances with the national government? Do you go to the 27th person down on the Assoc of Muslim Scholar's list?"
You can go to any of them. Nothing's going to change either way. The most influence you ever have is to vote for someone different at the elections. It's not possible to do anything else. Members of the public are demanding contradictory things. The politicians have their own opinions anyway. I even voted for an independent who promised to follow the electorate's opinion instead of his own, but of course he didn't.
"What is your connection to the national government at all?"
I voted for them. In fact, it's actually the exact same election. I vote for my local member in the lower house at the same time as I vote for a party list in the upper house.
"What is the incentive of politicians to campaign or provide services to your particular, especially rural, community? None."
They are equally accountable either way. Do they want those rural votes? How do they propose getting them?
"Other than the figureheads at the very top of the party list, all the others are much less representative of Iraqis than they would be if they were elected individually by districts."
I have both forms of government here, and they both produce a similar result. I think NZ went from the local rep system to the proportional representation system about 10 years ago. I'm not that interested though. So long as they have some semblance of democracy, I'm pretty happy. I've never seen any proof that one system is superior to the other. Except on one point - single transferrable vote. Which is something you don't have in the US, but we do have here. Maybe I need to wax lyrical about the corrupt US system with only 2 parties and other parties shut out because of the lack of STV and the lack of a large number of parties like Iraq has?
"Imagine, for example, if Americans were only allowed to vote for John McCain or Hillary Clinton."
That pretty much sums up the US system actually with your strong presidential system. Neither Iraq nor Australia has that horrible system. Maybe you should go on a fact-finding mission to Iraq and ask them to teach you about democracy?
"And THEY got to pick whatever lackeys from their respective parties that they wanted to fill both houses of Congress. What a stupid f'ing idea."
That's why
they call it the "Bush Administration". It seems that most of the important decisions are made by one man in the US. Don't you think it's a stupid idea having only 2 parties with smaller parties locked out? Again, go and learn from Iraq. In Australia we give small parties a chance with STV (that's how independents get in) and proportional representation (that's how the Australian Democrats get in). However, Australia's system pales in comparison to Iraq's wide range of choices. Maybe we can share a hotel on a joint fact-finding mission to Iraq? Just where the hell do 300 political parties come from? And that's not counting the sub-parties in each list!
But at the end of the day, I don't really care if they have 2 parties or 300 parties or STV or PR or FPP or any other form of democracy. So long as I can see that they have freedom of speech, a free media, multiple opinions coming out, people not scared to voice a political opinion (as verified by the multiple opinions), disagreement in parliament, especially criticism of the PM so that I can see him defend himself from spurious charges, I have confidence that human rights are being protected, which is my main concern. It would also be my main concern if I actually lived there. Also I want to see that the Iraqis have been empowered to change their leaders. That gives me confidence. They've already changed from Allawi to Jafaari to Maliki.
nonadas, I forgot to mention one thing. When you're killing ALL the Muslims, ie including me, the 88% of Afghans who supported liberation, don't forget to also kill the 90% of Kurds who support the liberation of Iraq. They're mostly Muslims too.
Paul
"The motives of those who made the decisions are what count."
They already told you their motives,"
Oh, and you believe everything government tells you?? How sad. In fact you don't believe everything as you have admitted when you say you knew that Powell's speech was nonsense. It seems you are happy to pick and choose what you believe so that it fits your case. How convenient.
"You said these people didn't exist, even though it isn't possible to prove a negative, and instead of admitting how wrong you were, like you always are, you weaseled and moved the goalposts."
No, the one who moved the goalposts is you. You came up with a few people who hardly spoke English and weren't willing or able to debate the issues. What I asked for (you can go back and check) was "intelligent" people. For you to say that they must be intelligent because they agree that you are God is not proof of anything (other than the fact that you are guilty of another argumental fallacy - a circular argument).
OK, I'll make it easier: try and produce even one "intelligent" person who believes you are God and is willing to argue the case for it. Go on. Can't do it? No, I thought so. Batman certainly doesn't believe it, nor does Nonadas (in fact Nonadas thinks you're nutty as a Cadbury's Fruit and Nut; one of the few things we agree on).
Ah, i see Paul has returned and with his coming he brings a great big argument regarding his godlike nature... i'm beginning to wonder if Paul is insane... everyone's entitled to believe as they wish since it's possible... but making yourself god! That's literally self centered!
Paul the God... maybe i shall call him Pod for short! The all benevolant Pod!
Has a nice ring to it....
Foddy, "Oh, and you believe everything government tells you??"
Despite decades of watching, I've yet to see them get caught out in a blatant lie, Foddy. So the odds are in favour of an INSTITUTION coming up with the truth rather than one individual. Unless you count Clinton's lying about "sexual relations", but again, that's down to an individual, not a joint action (that is susceptible to leaks) by the government.
"How sad."
You're the sad case here. Believing that the government is always lying and that you can know the truth by reading tea leaves.
"In fact you don't believe everything as you have admitted when you say you knew that Powell's speech was nonsense."
That was intelligence, Foddy. Intelligence is just a guess. They're welcome to say "we saw a truck here and we think it's full of WMD". It's not possible to know. You on the other hand pretend to know that Bush's administration wishes to set things up for a crime by a future government 50 years from now, based on ZERO evidence.
"It seems you are happy to pick and choose what you believe so that it fits your case. How convenient."
It seems you are happy to completely fabricate any "evidence" in order to fit your case. How convenient.
PE:"You said these people didn't exist, even though it isn't possible to prove a negative, and instead of admitting how wrong you were, like you always are, you weaseled and moved the goalposts."
"No, the one who moved the goalposts is you."
No, Foddy, you're lying again. You said that these people didn't EXIST. I showed you that they EXISTED. You didn't apologize for being so so wrong.
"You came up with a few people"
And that is the point at which you were required to concede defeat according to your original goalpost, but, being a dishonest prick, you weaseled instead.
"who hardly spoke English"
They spoke sufficient English to get their point across. I never said they were native English speakers or the world's best debaters. That would be me, not them.
"and weren't willing or able to debate the issues."
They don't need to. I can debate you and I win easily every time. I can easily spot your logical fallacies.
"What I asked for (you can go back and check) was "intelligent" people."
You haven't even conceded the original goalposts, that these people exist. Now you're jury-rigging new goal posts where you get to decide if someone is "intelligent". You're not even intelligent yourself. You wouldn't recognize someone intelligent.
"For you to say that they must be intelligent because they agree that you are God is not proof of anything (other than the fact that you are guilty of another argumental fallacy - a circular argument)."
Straw man. I said they were intelligent because they could recognize the beauty of message 666. As usual, it's you with the logical fallacy.
"OK, I'll make it easier: try and produce even one "intelligent" person
who believes you are God and is willing to argue the case for it."
You haven't even conceded defeat in the original goalposts. I'm not going to harass these people again. And you are unable to defeat my argument. It doesn't make any difference if someone else parrots my argument. You lose no matter who presents the exact same argument. I'm the best person to do that.
"Go on. Can't do it? No, I thought so."
Go on. Concede defeat according to the original goalposts. Can't do it? Not surprised. You're totally dishonest which is why you assume that Bush is as dishonest as you.
"Batman certainly doesn't believe it, nor does Nonadas"
The argument is complex, and people fall over at different points of the logic chain. It's rare to find someone who can make it all the way through. You fall over right at the very premise that Iraqi women have a right to not be raped. Nonadas seems to have a dogma that 0.1% of Iraqis represent 100% of Iraqis, and without a way of getting people to think logically, I will not be able to get him to understand. I haven't argued with Batman so don't know which bit he fails to grasp.
"(in fact Nonadas thinks you're nutty as a Cadbury's Fruit and Nut; one of the few things we agree on)."
I'm not the one who can't tell the difference between 0.1% and 100%. But, give him a chance. My initial reaction to any claim of someone being God would also be one of ridicule. Hell, for decades I thought anyone who even BELIEVED in a god was a nutcase.
Proffessor EGADD, "Ah, i see Paul has returned and with his coming he brings a great big argument regarding his godlike nature... i'm beginning to wonder if Paul is insane..."
That is an interesting comment from someone who managed to follow the logic up until the point where they realised that message 666 was the greatest scientific achievement in human history.
Quite frankly, that is sufficient. I don't particularly care if people take the next step in realising I'm God. I just want freedom and human rights spread across the globe so that I can die in peace.
However, if people want a religion, they may as well have the true religion, which is a lot more sophisticated than the crap they were indoctrinated with.
"everyone's entitled to believe as they wish since it's possible."
Just as you're entitled to believe that God is insane, or doesn't exist.
"but making yourself god! That's literally self centered!"
It's the literal truth, regardless of whether you think it's self-centred or not. Just as being the world's greatest scientist is the literal truth.
"The all benevolant Pod!"
Most people don't seem to think God is "all benevolent". They seem to think that he sends completely innocent atheists to Hell to be tortured. I'm a hell of a lot better than the sadistic prick they imagine. But I don't think I'd classify myself as "all benevolent". When I call these left-wing loonies loonies, and expose every logical fallacy they come up with, I don't think that is strictly "benevolent", unless you argue that exposing the logical fallacies of the left is in the long-term interest of the globe.
"Has a nice ring to it."
Message 666 has a nice ring to it. How is your propagation of it going?
Paul
"Straw man. I said they were intelligent because they could recognize the beauty of message 666. As usual, it's you with the logical fallacy."
Let's try to take you through it step by step (as one usually has to do with those who are too stupid to understand otherwise).
1. You believe (with absolutely no evidence and relying on medieval mumbo jumbo) that you are God.
2. You persuade some simplistic souls that because you want to protect innocent Iraqi women (forget for the moment that you want to slaughter hundreds of millions of innocent Iranians, Pakistanis and others - but, curiously, not Kazakhstanis) you have the answer to the world's problems.
3. Because they believe in you (and you believe that you are intelligent - in fact so intelligent that you are God (sorry, Pod), they must be intelligent.
A classic circular argument (which of course falls down as the original premise is laughably wrong).
Paul
"It's the literal truth, regardless of whether you think it's self-centred or not. Just as being the world's greatest scientist is the literal truth."
Just repeating the same lie again and again doesn't make it true. As I'm sure even you know, science requires the ability to replicate experiments and peer review. Why don't you produce even ONE reputable scientist who agrees with you. Just one. Surely that's not asking too much?
By the way, I will freely admit that a few (was it 2 or was it 3?) people whose first language wasn't English came along and said they agreed with some of your views. As you have admitted, they don't have a great command of English, so you don't even really know they understand what you are talking about. Do they believe you are God?
I see your Taiwanese friend who started a blog pretty soon gave up when she realised what you were all about.
Foddy, "Let's try to take you through it step by step (as one usually has to do with those who are too stupid to understand otherwise)."
Let's answer your logical fallacies one by one so that others can see that it is you that is too stupid to understand.
"1. You believe (with absolutely no evidence"
Wrong, Foddy. With a stack of evidence.
"and relying on medieval mumbo jumbo) that you are God."
Wrong, Foddy. It's not relying on that. It's part of the full picture, but it stands without it.
"2. You persuade some simplistic souls"
Wrong, they're not simplistic. They're smarter than you.
"that because you want to protect innocent Iraqi women"
Yes, Foddy. Decent people realise that that is noble. I had erroneously assumed that 90% of the globe felt the same way.
"(forget for the moment that you want to slaughter hundreds of millions of innocent Iranians, Pakistanis and others"
No I don't, Foddy. I don't want to kill any innocent people at all. Straw man. I actually want to PROTECT the innocent people by killing the guilty. Innocent people like that Iranian woman who was lashed. Or Christians in Pakistan who are being persecuted.
"but, curiously, not Kazakhstanis)"
Not anyone, Foddy. You have to resort to complete lies in an attempt to win a point.
"you have the answer to the world's problems."
Yes I do, Foddy. You're obviously too stupid to understand that, and in fact, too stupid to even understand the problems.
"3. Because they believe in you (and you believe that you are intelligent - in fact so intelligent that you are God (sorry, Pod), they must be intelligent."
No Foddy. Staw man again. They are intelligent because they can understand the significance of the CONTENTS of message 666.
"A classic circular argument (which of course falls down as the original premise is laughably wrong)."
It is you that is laughably wrong with logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy while pretending that you've discovered a logical fallacy from me.
Foddy,
PE:"It's the literal truth, regardless of whether you think it's self-centred or not. Just as being the world's greatest scientist is the literal truth."
"Just repeating the same lie again and again doesn't make it true."
It's you that repeats the same lie again and again, failing to make it come true. Actually, lies.
"As I'm sure even you know, science requires the ability to replicate experiments and peer review."
It is replicatable. I don't seem to have many peers though.
"Why don't you produce even ONE reputable scientist who agrees with you. Just one. Surely that's not asking too much?"
Give me a stack of email addresses of scientists that specialize in the field of psychoanalyzing anti-Americans and I'll see if any of them are smart enough to be able to step through the logic. It's able to be done. But you need to be pretty smart.
"By the way, I will freely admit that a few (was it 2 or was it 3?) people whose first language wasn't English came along and said they agreed with some of your views."
Weaseling. Do you admit that you are wrong that I have 0 followers?
"As you have admitted, they don't have a great command of English, so you don't even really know they understand what you are talking about. Do they believe you are God?"
Yes, Foddy. They said that to me, and they said that to you.
"I see your Taiwanese friend who started a blog pretty soon gave up when she realised what you were all about."
Wrong. That's just more crap you made up. She knew about my religious beliefs before she even started her blog, and she told me before she even wrote her blog that as soon as school started she would have zero time available. Will you admit you are wrong? No chance. Will you realise you are a dickhead who keeps on fabricating crap and then question all the other crap you fabricated? Nope. But that's who and what you are, Foddy.
Foddy, here are the various mistakes you need to admit to, and furthermore, you need to analyze why you made these mistakes, and change your attitude/worldview accordingly:
1. No-one agrees with the logic that I used to determined that I was God.
(wrong, these people were provided as requested).
2. No-one could follow the logic that I used to determine that I was God.
(wrong, there are people who can follow the logic).
3. I didn't get an independent person to review my logic.
(wrong, these people are all independent).
4. I was lying when I said these people existed.
(wrong, I wasn't lying, I had been telling the truth about that all along).
The basic problem is that YOU are an unabashed liar and you project this onto everyone else (e.g. Bush). You don't realise that some of us are proud to tell the truth, and think it is dishonorable to lie. You don't understand the concept of honour. You don't understand the concept of nobility. You don't understand the concept of empathy. You don't understand the concept of courage. You don't understand the concept of being unselfish.
Until these fundamental character flaws are addressed, I'm not going to harass decent people with far inferior debating skills than me to debate on my behalf when I can effortlessly demolish you myself. Especially when it's a logical fallacy in itself - you're hoping to find a weaker target so that you can actually win for a change, and ignore the fact that you lose every time against me. Sorry chump. You can go through me to get to them. In much the same way that Howard went to a lot of effort to get on the top of Osama's hit list so that he would go through Australia if he wanted to attack America. An honourable act thrown away by Rudd's cowardly treacherous immorality.
Paul
You agree with the bombing of Iran. Pray tell us how you are going to separate the guilty to the innocent on the ground? But I was forgetting that you are God, so maybe you can do it?
Paul,
"Give me a stack of email addresses of scientists that specialize in the field of psychoanalyzing anti-Americans and I'll see if any of them are smart enough to be able to step through the logic. It's able to be done. But you need to be pretty smart."
Don't be stupid! You're the one claiming to be the greatest scientist in the world, but you haven't even followed one of the most basic requirements of science (actually because you can't). It's YOUR job to get peer review of your theory, not mine.
Paul
"3. I didn't get an independent person to review my logic.
(wrong, these people are all independent)."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your complete idiocy. You claim to be the greatest scientist in the world, and claim that your views have been reviewed by people who are not scientists and hardly speak English! Since you claim to be highly intelligent, surely you see how stupid that is.
But you KNOW that no scientist is ever going to agree with your "scientific" reasoning, so that's all you've got. But your desperation seems to have no boundaries, so you try and justify it with your silly internet buddies masquerading as peer reviewing scientists!
Foddy, "You agree with the bombing of Iran."
Yes, just as I agree with the Australian police arresting Australian rapists.
"Pray tell us how you are going to separate the guilty to the innocent on the ground?"
The same way that Australian police avoid killing innocent Australians on the road on their way to responding to a rape call. There's no guarantees in human endeavour. All you can do is choose the least worst option.
"But I was forgetting that you are God, so maybe you can do it?"
Anyone can choose the least worst option. Apparently you need to be God to understand this and determine the least worst course of action. Seems most people have a hell of a lot of trouble understanding this simple concept. You're a classic example
PE:"Give me a stack of email addresses of scientists that specialize in the field of psychoanalyzing anti-Americans and I'll see if any of them are smart enough to be able to step through the logic. It's able to be done. But you need to be pretty smart."
"Don't be stupid!"
You're the one being stupid knowing full well that there is no convenient way for me to get this peer reviewed in a non-existent field.
"You're the one claiming to be the greatest scientist in the world"
Correct.
"but you haven't even followed one of the most basic requirements of science (actually because you can't)."
I have. I've asked people who I actually have access to, e.g. idiots like you, to fault the logic, and you have been unable to. That gives me confidence that it's airtight. That's all I can do with the resources available to me.
"It's YOUR job to get peer review of your theory, not mine."
It's my job to defend the theory in the free marketplace of ideas, which I have, every time. If you'd like to find someone smarter than yourself to challenge me, go right ahead.
"3. I didn't get an independent person to review my logic.
(wrong, these people are all independent)."
"I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your complete idiocy."
You should cry at your own idiocy, dishonesty and immorality.
"You claim to be the greatest scientist in the world, and claim that your views have been reviewed by people who are not scientists and hardly speak English!"
That was the goalpost you set - that no-one else had independently verified my logic. When such people turned up, you moved the goalposts instead of apologizing and challenging your own assumptions.
"Since you claim to be highly intelligent, surely you see how stupid that is."
Since you are so dishonest, you can see your own dishonesty, surely?
"But you KNOW that no scientist is ever going to agree with your "scientific" reasoning, so that's all you've got."
I "know" no such thing. I'm sure they are out there. I have no way of contacting a sufficiently large number of scientists to find the truly open-minded ones who also have the morality required to accept the basic premises.
You don't "know" any such thing either, just like you didn't "know" that Bush wants to control the oil or that no independent people had validated my logic. You just completely fabricated it, and were dishonest about it.
"But your desperation seems to have no boundaries"
You're the desperate one. You get caught out so many times and weasel away, hoping no-one will notice. I notice every bit of weaseling, Foddy, and point it out.
"so you try and justify it with your silly internet buddies masquerading as peer reviewing scientists!"
They're not masquerading as scientists and I never claimed they were. They are independent people who were able to follow and agree with the logic. As you requested. And as you are too dishonest to admit that I provided. That's you in a word, Foddy - the last word in dishonesty.
Paul
"The same way that Australian police avoid killing innocent Australians on the road on their way to responding to a rape call."
I didn't realise the Australian police responded to a rape call by bombing.
"That was the goalpost you set - that no-one else had independently verified my logic. When such people turned up, you moved the goalposts instead of apologizing and challenging your own assumptions."
Not only are you moving the goalposts, you're moving the whole field. We're talking about something entirely different (but to which you responded with the same answer, in other words reference to your silly internet buddies); namely your claim that you are the greatest scientist in the world. In order to be recognised as that, you must have peer review of your theories - I think you probably agree with that, haven't you?. I asked you which scientists were in agreement with you, and you referred to the same half-baked individuals as before, who speak mediocre English at best and are not scientists. I'm STILL waiting for you to come up with the scientists, but I guess it's going to be in vain, because you won't find any. Instead you come up with pathetic excuses about not being able to contact enough of them. Since you're the greatest scientist in the world, surely all other scientists will listen to you. You must be a member of some of the great scientific societies of the world, aren't you? What are your scientific qualfications, by the way, and which scientific magazines have published your articles? I don't need a full list; only half a dozen will suffice. What? There aren't any? Not even one? Surely that must be wrong?
Foddy,
PE:"The same way that Australian police avoid killing innocent Australians on the road on their way to responding to a rape call."
"I didn't realise the Australian police responded to a rape call by bombing."
They don't. They use different technology to respond to those sorts of crimes, and it has a different set of innocent victims, in a different manner.
Regardless, I choose the least-worst option in all cases.
PE:"That was the goalpost you set - that no-one else had independently verified my logic. When such people turned up, you moved the goalposts instead of apologizing and challenging your own assumptions."
"Not only are you moving the goalposts, you're moving the whole field. We're talking about something entirely different"
Bullshit Foddy. I was talking about the last time you had one of these "challenges", months ago, and when I came up with the goods, you weaseled in your usual dishonesty instead of challenging your entire data-gathering process.
"(but to which you responded with the same answer, in other words reference to your silly internet buddies)"
No, I responded by pointing out that of your various "challenges", you never ever admit that you were wrong and apologize and reassess your worldview.
"namely your claim that you are the greatest scientist in the world."
That may take centuries to be understood, the same as the guy who originally proposed that the earth went around the sun.
"In order to be recognised as that, you must have peer review of your theories - I think you probably agree with that, haven't you?"
To be RECOGNIZED? Yes, absolutely. I'm at the beginning of that process, not at the end. Similar to the guy who pretty much invented a computer a century or so ago. Took a long time before his accomplishment was recognized.
"I asked you which scientists were in agreement with you, and you referred to the same half-baked individuals as before"
Not in response to that, I didn't. Straw man.
"who speak mediocre English at best and are not scientists."
Pity I never made any claims about their English nor their being scientists. I said that I knew people intelligent enough to understand the significance of message 666.
"I'm STILL waiting for you to come up with the scientists, but I guess it's going to be in vain, because you won't find any."
I don't have the ability to contact large numbers of scientists so that I can find the few that are open-minded enough and moral enough to understand what I've done. I never claimed I had the ability to publicize. I said the exact opposite in fact. I told you I didn't have the ability to widely publicize my work.
"Instead you come up with pathetic excuses about not being able to contact enough of them."
It's not a pathetic excuse. It's just a fact. If you dispute the fact, perhaps you can show me my list of scientists that I refuse to email?
"Since you're the greatest scient
scientist in the world, surely all other scientists will listen to you."
I doubt it. Most of them will be a reflection of the population at large, and be dogmatic and immoral, just like you.
"You must be a member of some of the great scientific societies of the world, aren't you?"
No, I'm not. I don't even know the name of this particular field. In fact, I think this is probably a brand new field. I don't know why there isn't a field studying anti-Americanism and what needs to be done to wrap it up, but there should be. There should be an entire Manhattan Project devoted to it.
"What are your scientific qualfications, by the way"
Knowing more about the motives of anti-American pricks like you than anyone else on the planet.
"and which scientific magazines have published your articles?"
I don't know of any scientific magazines devoted to the study of you and your terrorist allies. The closest thing is the Iraqi blogs, and one of them has mentioned me by name. Any scientists involved in this project needed to contact the Iraqi bloggers and do the same thing I did. You'll have to speak to the non-existent scientists why they were a no-show. I was there. The leader in this new field of investigating the ideology behind 9/11 (and its cure).
"I don't need a full list; only half a dozen will suffice. What? There aren't any? Not even one? Surely that must be wrong?"
I can give you the list of Iraqi blogs where you can find people doing the research. You will find my name in the comments section of all of them. And you'll see my blog linked in some of them. That's the nature of this new field of scientific enquiry. Like it or lump it, that's what we've got. A total government failure in fact. They should have been doing all this themselves. They didn't even show up. They didn't even realise the significance of the scientific question that was about to be asked - what the hell would the Iraqi people do in response to foreign troops in their country - and WHY?
BTW, this lack of a Manhattan Project is exactly what caused me to be hospitalized. After realising that the Iraqi insurgents were merely reacting to their genes, as per the divisions basically identified in message 666, I tried to ring the Australian military so that they could contact the American military so that they could inform the people who were in charge of psychoanalyzing the Iraqi people what was happening, so that they could broadcast the appropriate "I pledge allegiance" and get Bush to convert to Islam so that we didn't need to keep killing these people. At the same time the TV was showing the US military talking about how the insurgents had been "bottled up" and were about to be slaughtered. It was a race against time to stop the killing.
That was when I found out that the faceless beaurocrats didn't care about the Iraqi people as much as I did, or even at all. No-one I spoke to anywhere gave a damn about minimizing the unnecessary killing. It's just like talking to a prick like you, Foddy. It freaked me out that people were being unnecessarily killed by our government. I didn't expect them to be so callous. In the years since then I've found out that hardly anyone cares enough to stick their neck out enough to even write a damn letter to their government.
People just want to look good in front of the noisy left-wing vitriol, and that's about it. They are basically complete cowards. They can't even handle nasty words from scumbag terrorist supporters. They'd much prefer to just "pray for peace" and get the nod from their left-wing fascist overlords than come to an honest, independent position.
But the real killer is that it's NO-ONE's JOB TO ANSWER THESE SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS. The only research done is independents off their own back. ie the people who rocked up to the Iraqi blogs from across the globe. To actually, like, INVESTIGATE, by actually, like ASKING some ACTUAL IRAQIS for some vital data about what was causing the polar opposite response.
Paul
A whole lot of verbiage and ducking the question. Let me put it again in language even you should be able to understand.
Your claim is that you are the greatest scientist in the world. My question to you is: please provide the name of the scientists who have peer reviewed your work, thus enabling you to claim the merits of your scientific work.
No matter how much you wriggle and squirm and make pathetic excuses, the truth is as follows:
1. You are not a scientist.
2. You have no scientific theories.
3. Still less do you have any scientific proofs.
4. You have no peer review of your scientific work (even if there is any).
5. You have not published in any scientific journals.
6. You have no scientific qualifications.
7. You are not a member of any scientific organisation, educational or otherwise.
In other words your claim to be the greatest scientist in the world is totally false; a complete fabrication; an out and out lie; an absolute joke.
End of the matter.
Paul
"That is an interesting comment from someone who managed to follow the logic up until the point where they realised that message 666 was the greatest scientific achievement
in human history."
A. I wouldn't say it's the greatest acheivement in human history because it hasn't actually accomplished anything yet.
B. I do indeed follow the logic.
And C. The only problem i have here is your belief that you are god.
I am fine with 666 completely. The only issue i have here is that you believe yourself to be god. I can accept your belief that this is a computer simulation, i can accept the belief of millions that there is someone who either welcomes you to paradise or casts you down into torment for all eternity, hell, i can even accept peoples belief that the universe was sneezed out by a giant marsh mellow one bright midsummers morning. It is all "possible".
Someone saying that they ARE god on the other hand Paul is a syptom of borderline insanity. Now i am sure you're not insane (i hope anyway) but an individuals belief that they are the creator of this universe is mad.
"However, if people want a religion, they may as well have the true religion, which is a lot more sophisticated than the crap they were indoctrinated with."
Don't go around saying it's the true religion. There is no "true religion", saying that your's is the "true path" just makes you sound narrow minded; additionally it makes me think of the Christians during the crusades and your stereotypical Muslim. "Our god is the real and only god!!!", "We follow the true faith!!!" Blah Blah Blah. Let's say that Islam is the "true faith" and every non-muslim is cast into whatever they consider hell. Now, are you telling me that 99.9% of all humanity to ever have existed (considering our ancestors followed shaminism and animism) our now being tormented in some pit somewhere.How bloody ridiculous.
""everyone's entitled to believe as they wish since it's possible."
Just as you're entitled to believe that God is insane, or doesn't exist."
Yep.
"It's the literal truth, regardless of whether you think it's self-centred or not. Just as being the world's greatest scientist is the literal truth."
NO NO NO!!! Paul come on! It's NOT the literal truth because you cannot prove that you are god, and yes you are right it has NOTHING to do with it being self-centered, BUT, By pupporting that YOU ARE GOD and that is the absoloute truth makes you NO BETTER than than the Christian's who invaded Aztec lands and killed them all for not following the "true faith" It makes you NO BETTER than those "JAHOVAH'S" Witnesses (Don't know what the correct spelling is) who go around pushing their religion into other peoples faces. It makes you NO BETTER than those indoctrinated Muslims who see their religion as "the one and only" true faith.
How can you not see, as logical as you are, that by asserting without ANY evidence that you being god IS UNDENIABLY the ONE and ONLY true faith that it only makes you into one of those Religious extremists who close their minds off to all other possibilities and ignorantly denounce every other belief. Can you really not see that?
Let me put this into a context you will understand.
You are saying that your religion is the "true religion". Also you are saying that you ARE god. You are not saying it's likly that you are god, you are saying that you are god.
This outlook you have about your religion and your status as god, is one where it is absoloutly without doubt correct.
You even said it yourself.
"It's the literal truth, regardless of whether you think it's self-centred or not"
See.
Now, becasue you believe this to be the absoloute truth without a hint of doubt and cannot be disputed by mere mortals like us with faulty morals; you are turning your view into a piece of dogma.
Hence, YOU are being dogmatic. Now, if you scroll down....
You will see this quote:
"I am AGAINST dogma."
One of your blessed golden rules... hmmmm... So, if we take this and join it up to your belief that you are most definatly god without a hint of doubt and that your "faith" is absoloutly correct despit you being UNABLE to prove it; that means that you have...
BROKEN YOUR OWN RULE.
Well done Paul, you have inadvertently become a hypocrit. You are one of us now, complete with faulty logic and all.
Now you have two options,
A. Pathetically try and backpeddle on what you've said and say that you did not really
mena it and that it was really a poor choice of words.
OR...
B. Accept that you have flouted your own rule and revise your religious standpoint so
that you end up from:
"I AM MOST DEFINTLY GOD AND MY FAITH IS THE TRUE FAITH NAH NAH NAH NAHA NAH"
And end up at...
"I BELIEVE THAT I AM GOD AND THAT MY RELIGION IS SUPREME TO ALL OTHERS BUT IT IS OF COURSE COMPLETELY POSSIBLE THAT I AM WRONG"
What is it to be?
"Message 666 has a nice ring to it. How is your propagation of it going?"
It's propagating as well as a dead pope. I have explained it and outlined it to many of my friends and they all agree that it's perfectly logical and the height of moral standards but they then shrug it off and they then go off on a tangent and talk about making Britain great again by killing the immigrants, eradicating the Jews and Muslims and Sikhs, outlawing all forms of religion and just generally being facist. The interesting thing is that they know it's immoral but they are only concerned with the needs of Britain and what they think is best... they are as you would say. Simply immoral. I can't break past that viewpoint of theirs because me being socialist and them being factist... well we don't exactly see eye to eye...
Odd how we are best friends... then again we take all of our arguments good naturedly and fill our debated with jokes and such... perhaps that's the solution to strife between the worlds faction. Just good natured humour.
Foddy, "A whole lot of verbiage and ducking the question."
No Foddy, that's what you do.
"Your claim is that you are the greatest scientist in the world."
Yep.
"My question to you is: please provide the name of the scientists who have peer reviewed your work, thus enabling you to claim the merits of your scientific work."
I've already answered that. This is a new scientific field and there aren't any peers. It will take some time for my work to be recognized. Until then, I just demolish your arguments or anyone else who attempts to challenge it.
"No matter how much you wriggle and squirm and make pathetic excuses, the truth is as follows"
You're the one who wriggles and squirms, Foddy.
"1. You are not a scientist."
Wrong. I used the scientific process to determine what made people like you anti-American and I blazed a new field, the most important field in fact.
"2. You have no scientific theories."
Wrong. A natural "subjugate or be subjugated" instinct is just part of it. Various others including what ties NATO together etc.
"3. Still less do you have any scientific proofs."
Wrong. That's the long line of logic you never stand a chance of defeating.
"4. You have no peer review of your scientific work (even if there is any)."
Given that this is a new scientific field, the most I have for peers is various people on the Iraqi blogs, and they have failed to defeat the logic.
"5. You have not published in any scientific journals."
My blog is a scientific journal.
"6. You have no scientific qualifications."
In what field?
"7. You are not a member of any scientific organisation, educational or otherwise."
That's what my blog is. I created a new organization.
"In other words your claim to be the greatest scientist in the world is totally false"
No it isn't.
"a complete fabrication"
Nope. It's objectively verifiable. I'm sitting on the most important scientific discovery in human history.
"an out and out lie"
Nope. It's objectively verifiable. The only thing I am lacking is a Manhattan Project to report my discovery to, plus a way of actually contacting them. And large numbers of them, because it's difficult to understand.
"an absolute joke"
You're the absolute joke, Foddy.
"End of the matter"
Resolved in my favour. As usual, the ONLY thing you can point to is the fact that I'm not rich enough to widely publish the results of my decades-long scientific research. And that was never in dispute. The one thing you can't do is actually defeat the logic. All you can do is come up with tired old argument ad populum logical fallacies. Just like the people who dissed the guy who first said the earth revolved around the sun.
Proffessor EGADD,
"A. I wouldn't say it's the greatest acheivement in human history because it hasn't actually accomplished anything yet."
Well, you said something along those lines before.
"And C. The only problem i have here is your belief that you are god."
Why? Christians believe that Jesus was God on earth. Do you have a problem with that?
"Someone saying that they ARE god on the other hand Paul is a syptom of borderline insanity."
In that case, why don't Christians believe that Jesus was insane?
"Now i am sure you're not insane (i hope anyway) but an individuals belief that they are the creator of this universe is mad."
Nothing mad about it when most of it is backed by evidence.
"Don't go around saying it's the true religion. There is no "true religion""
Wrong.
"additionally it makes me think of the Christians during the crusades and your stereotypical Muslim. "Our god is the real and only god!!!""
Logical fallacy. Just because other people said something that was wrong does not mean that what I said was wrong.
"NO NO NO!!! Paul come on! It's NOT the literal truth because you cannot prove that you are god"
Just because I am not able to prove it to your satisfaction does not mean it isn't the literal truth. I can't prove that man landed on the moon to some people's satisfaction either. I can't prove that Bush didn't invade Iraq because Iraq had the best sunflower seeds either.
"BUT, By pupporting that YOU ARE GOD and that is the absoloute truth makes you NO BETTER than than the Christian's who invaded Aztec lands and killed them all for not following the "true faith""
Yes it does, because I'm not killing people for failing to recognize me. I'm killing people for the same reason I killed them when I was an atheist.
"How can you not see, as logical as you are, that by asserting without ANY evidence"
That is crap. I presented heaps of evidence.
"Religious extremists who close their minds off to all other possibilities and ignorantly denounce every other belief."
I haven't closed my mind off. That's just the most logical conclusion. Another possibility is that it was pure coincidence that the one person on the planet who responded correctly to the rape of Iraqi women and happened to create the most important scientific discovery in human history just happened to be in message 666 on Sept 11, and we also happen to have evolved a genetic trait that a few days after this happens, you start receiving what appear to be revelations etc. And maybe the moon landing really was faked. Who knows? I'm just drawing the most obvious conclusion based on the available evidence.
"Can you really not see that?"
Can you really not see that?
"Also you are saying that you ARE god. You are not saying it's likly that you are god, you are saying that you are god."
Not quite. I am saying that I AM God in the same way that I say that the Americans DID
land on the moon. It is so likely that I basically accept it as fact and don't seriously question it. However, if evidence is provided, I will reconsider either thing.
"This outlook you have about your religion and your status as god, is one where it is absoloutly without doubt correct."
Wrong. I don't think that anything at all is totally beyond doubt. Not even the moon landings. Not even that the earth is more than 5 minutes old. All of my OWN knowledge could have been faked.
PE:"It's the literal truth, regardless of whether you think it's self-centred or not"
"See."
I said literal, not absolute. I'm not talking in hyperbole.
"Now, becasue you believe this to be the absoloute truth"
You made this switch from literal to absolute yourself. I didn't do that.
BTW, I originally assumed that I received revelations FROM God and that I was a PROPHET. It's only later after a lot more thinking that I came up with a better (ie more logical) model. Based on how I would implement a computer simulation.
"without a hint of doubt"
You never asked me if I had any doubt.
"and cannot be disputed by mere mortals like us"
I never said that either. You're welcome to dispute it, and I enjoy a challenge.
"with faulty morals"
I never even said that I didn't have faulty morals myself. It's a continuous process, and I've violated my own philosophy in the past.
"you are turning your view into a piece of dogma."
Not at all. You just made that up.
"Now you have two options"
I had a 3rd option actually. Point out the flaws in your own logic that led you to believe that I only had 2 options.
"I BELIEVE THAT I AM GOD AND THAT MY RELIGION IS SUPREME TO ALL OTHERS BUT IT IS OF COURSE COMPLETELY POSSIBLE THAT I AM WRONG"
This is close, but still not accurate. My religion is the best CURRENTLY AVAILABLE but it should be IMPROVED by further science.
"It's propagating as well as a dead pope."
Ok, I really don't know how to implement it.
"talk about making Britain great again by killing the immigrants, eradicating the Jews and Muslims and Sikhs"
And what do they say when you point out that this is against the anti-racist, anti-religious bigot mandates of message 666 and that they may be exterminated themselves because of that?
"The interesting thing is that they know it's immoral"
Ask them "so you consider yourself to be a bad person, do you?"
Paul
You really need to get some help! You are not the second coming of Jesus, any more than the other kooks and lunatics you can find on Wikipedia and elsewhere.
Your lies are everywhere, starting even in the first couple of paragraphs of The Second Coming. You clearly state that you were an atheist and then a few lines further down say that you converted from Christianity to your own Islamic religion Mu'tazilah (which you claim to be identical to Christianity, but which in fact is not identical to Christianity at all). Where does the Bible say that suicide is OK and that we should teach monkeys sign language? Or that "everyone has the right to not live in fear of being attacked by a shark at the beach"?
It is all such a huge joke that I'm really hoping that you do manage to get wider publicity and reveal to the world (in addition to the doctors who locked you up in the first - and second - place) what a total lunatic you are.
Hey, if this blog is a scientific journal, than I, as well as the other commenters, are all contributors to a scientific journal!
Wow, that makes me feel so important! You know, when paul and I were discussing his medications and other aspects of his stay at whatever type of facility he was at, THAT was pure science. My brother has a PHD in physics, but has he been in a scientific journal? I don't know, but I'm sure going to keep this blog a secret!
Foddy, "You really need to get some help!"
You're the racist sociopath who needs help - preferably amputation of the neck.
"You are not the second coming of Jesus, any more than the other kooks and lunatics you can find on Wikipedia and elsewhere."
Another logical fallacy - red herring. The fact that there are kooks in the world does not mean that I am a kook any more than it is because there are other racist sociopaths in the world that made you a racist sociopath.
"Your lies are everywhere"
You haven't demonstrated a single one. You like to assert things. You never admit to your own lies. But I'm still waiting for you to show even one lie from me. You'll never find one, Foddy. For the simple reason that I'm not lying. You're just projecting.
"starting even in the first couple of paragraphs of The Second Coming. You clearly state that you were an atheist"
That is true.
"and then a few lines further down say that you converted from Christianity"
Pardon? I converted from christianity to atheism, and was an atheist for over 2 decades. I've stated the same thing many times. Show me some unclear wording and I'll try rewording it, just for you.
"to your own Islamic religion Mu'tazilah"
I did that shortly after 2004-09-11, as I stated many times.
"(which you claim to be identical to Christianity, but which in fact is not identical to Christianity at all)."
Crikey. If I said that, it's not meant to be that picky. The general spirit is the same as modern Christianity (which is vague in itself).
"Where does the Bible say that suicide is OK and that we should teach monkeys sign language?"
It doesn't. But it does say in the bible that you should stone your own children to death if they are disobedient. Does the fact that there are no Christians doing that mean that there are in fact, no Christians?
"Or that "everyone has the right to not live in fear of being attacked by a shark at the beach"?"
Yes, Foddy. That is what I think is the spirit of the bible - life being sacrosanct etc.
"It is all such a huge joke"
You haven't demonstrated a single thing that is a joke yet, Foddy. Just baseless assertion after baseless assertion.
"that I'm really hoping that you do manage to get wider publicity and reveal to the world (in addition to the doctors who locked you up in the first - and second - place) what a total lunatic you are."
That's what they said about the guy who thought the earth went around the sun, too, Foddy. Didn't stop him from being right and everyone else wrong. Which just goes to show that you shouldn't use logical fallacies on which to base your argument. You fall flat on the face every time.
buh, "Hey, if this blog is a scientific journal, than I, as well as the other commenters, are all contributors to a scientific journal!"
You are in fact witnessing the bleeding edge of human history as it unfolds. Your name will live in infamy as one of the racist dogmatic sociopaths who couldn't recognize God when he was talking directly to him.
Proffessor EGADD, I forgot to mention something which I don't think I've mentioned before, but it's second nature to me. I think about how we could have JUSTICE in this world. What would be JUST is if your anti-Sikh friends were judged by a Sikh, and that Sikh gets to decide whether your friend goes to Heaven or Hell (or neither). Similarly, Foddy and Saddam should be judged by one of the Iraqi women being raped on Saddam's orders.
I quite often wonder if actually someone else on earth is God and I have merely been contacted. So I will perhaps be judged by YOU, who is God and just doesn't know it. And the other players are actually irrelevant. Or perhaps my wife is in fact God and will make the judgement on me based on how I treated her. Or perhaps the Caliph of Pakistan, or the Caliph of Peru (who is pissed off at me). I simply don't know for sure. What do you think would create a just world? Stalin in a gulag? Quite frankly there's so many people who deserve to go to Hell for human rights violations or negligent homicide. So the barrier probably needs to be lowered to allow the negligent through. What would you personally like to see? You can in fact negotiate (at least if it turns out that I am indeed God). I don't actually want to make that decision alone.
Paul
This is so easy!!
1. Here is what you said: "I also believe that the best way to defuse this Islam vs Christianity clash is for the stronger party, the Christians, to convert to a sect of Islam that is identical to Christianity (Mu'tazilah) and lead by example. This is what I have done . . " In other words "I have converted from Christianity to a sect of Islam etc etc."
You've admitted that you were not a a Christian for 2 decades, so the above is a clear lie.
2. "that is identical to Christianity"
Oh, now it's not identical to Christianity after all. Of course it's being 'picky' to point out that Christianity doesn't endorse suicide, is it? So another clear lie.
This is getting rather boring. I only bothered to read the first couple of paragraphs and caught you out in 2 blatant lies.
Paul
Hey, Greatest Scientist in the World. I still haven't seen the names of the other scientists who have peer-reviewed your work . . .
Oh, what? There aren't any? So who decided you are the Greatest Scientist in the World? You did, all by yourself? Isn't that convenient! Surely, being the master of logic, you must see how illogical it is?
Foddy, "This is so easy!!"
It's so easy for you to fall flat on your face, every time.
"1. Here is what you said: "I also believe that the best way to defuse this Islam vs Christianity clash is for the stronger party, the Christians, to convert to a sect of Islam that is identical to Christianity (Mu'tazilah) and lead by example. This is what I have done . . ""
That is correct.
"In other words "I have converted from Christianity to a sect of Islam etc etc.""
No Foddy. I didn't say I converted from Christianity to Islam. I said that they can CONVERT TO ISLAM JUST LIKE I CONVERTED TO ISLAM. That is part of the ambiguity of English, and if you read the rest of the context, I make it very clear I was an atheist before converting.
"You've admitted that you were not a a Christian for 2 decades, so the above is a clear lie."
No Foddy. It's just showing how desperate you are. If I was going to lie, I wouldn't put in the exact same area of text a very clear declaration that I was an atheist, would I? As usual, you're projecting the fact that you're a habitual liar onto me.
"2. "that is identical to Christianity"
Oh, now it's not identical to Christianity after all."
Define "Christianity", given that no Christians at all stone their own children to death when they are disobedient.
"Of course it's being 'picky' to point out that Christianity doesn't endorse suicide, is it?"
Says who? You may as well say that Christianity endorses slavery. It's in the bible.
"So another clear lie."
No, Foddy. It's my observation of modern Christianity in Australia, especially given that I was one myself at one time. I didn't stone people who worked on the Sabbath, and I ate pork.
"This is getting rather boring."
You are always boring, Foddy.
"I only bothered to read the first couple of paragraphs and caught you out in 2 blatant lies."
No you didn't, Foddy. That's your imagination running wild again. If you're confused by what I say, just ask me and I'll clarify it.
"Hey, Greatest Scientist in the World. I still haven't seen the names of the other scientists who have peer-reviewed your work"
I'm in the same situation as the guy who said that the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. Except at least that guy managed to get publicity (one way or another), even though he was widely ridiculed (by people just like you in fact).
"So who decided you are the Greatest Scientist in the World? You did, all by yourself?"
It's objectively true. That's why you can't actually beat any of the logic.
"Isn't that convenient!"
It's not so much convenient, as fact, that no-one has come close to defeating the logic.
"Surely, being the master of logic, you must see how illogical it is?"
No Foddy. I just see you engaging in more logical fallacies instead of actually defeating even a little bit of the logic.
Paul
"I'm in the same situation as the guy who said that the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around."
Who are you referring to?
Foddy, "Who are you referring to?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ari...archus_of_Samos
Took about 16 centuries for him to be vindicated. Let's hope humans aren't that dumb today and only take 16 years so that we can have world freedom and world peace before I die.
Paul
This guy was a real scientist (a mathematician and astronomer), not someone who based his beliefs on non-scientific myth and mumbo-jumbo.
Foddy, which one of us will be judas?
paul, there are Natural Laws of the Universe, which you can learn about if you want to. One of those is the law of Karma, which basically states that every action will have a reaction, if you do bad with ill intent misfortune will come to you at some point. I live my life with this in mind. I don't claim to be perfect, always do good, or that I've never intentionally done something that was pretty much not the right thing to do. But I try not to let those things happen now. I don't think having a different opinion than you on who is a racist, who is a murderer, or what rapes and murders are good (none) and what ones are bad (due entirely to your political persuasion; Guess Who?) constitutes a sin.
Proff, that's one of our great traits as human beings, that we can be friends with people who we may strongly disagree with. I know and have known several who would fall in this category, and some right-wingers can be quite judgemental and intolerant as we see all of the time here, and carry that self righteous air of "superiority" or whatever it is. Still, there may be some quality a person has that makes them desirable as a friend, lover, mate, whatever.
Most of the time, keeping an open mind and not rushing to judgement are what works best for me. I should be saying all of the time, but I still have a ways to go.
Paul,
Having a few idle moments at lunchtime, I took a look at your "bible" and found another lie immediately - and a big one.
"The three pillars of Islam are "the golden rule" (do unto others as you would have others do unto you), "fight subjugation" and "empathy for strangers"."
Nonsense. There are 5 pillars of Islam:
1. Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
2. Establishment of daily prayers;
3. Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
4. Self-purification through fasting; and
5. The pilgrimage to Mecca, for those who are able.
This can be easily proved: enter "The five pillars of Islam" in Google and you get over 80,000 hits; enter "the three pillars of Islam" and you get the grand total of 7 hits (including one leading to your own site).
I guess you thought no-one would bother to check?
Foddy, "This guy was a real scientist (a mathematician and astronomer)"
As am I. In this case, a researcher into genetic traits causing people to fight on a particular side. Regardless, what I was demonstrating is one of your logical fallacies. You can be the world's greatest scientist long before you are recognized for that. That's one example.
"not someone who based his beliefs on non-scientific myth and mumbo-jumbo."
Wrong. It's not a belief, it's a demonstrable fact (ie the contents of message 666, not the religious leap from there), totally derived by an ATHEIST using the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS which you are too stupid to understand.
Foddy, "Having a few idle moments at lunchtime, I took a look at your "bible" and found another lie immediately - and a big one."
That's not a lie, Foddy. Do you really think if I was going to lie I would put something in that every other Muslim, and plenty of non-Muslims already "knew" to be something else?
That's MY INTERPRETATION of the Quran using the Mu'tazilah philosophy of PUTTING THE BRAIN ABOVE THE QURAN.
"This can be easily proved: enter "The five pillars of Islam" in Google and you get over 80,000 hits;"
Now add "modern Mu'tazilah" to your search query. How many do you get then? Guess who the definitive source of modern Mu'tazilah is, Foddy? Given that it's an extinct sect that I'm reviving.
"I guess you thought no-one would bother to check?"
No, I just thought no-one would be so dumb as to call that a lie. Of course I expected most Muslims to disagree and to call me a kaffir. Why do you think I'm allied with America rather than the 99% of Muslims who *I* consider to be kaffirs?
buh, "paul, there are Natural Laws of the Universe, which you can learn about if you want to. One of those is the law of Karma"
There is no such law, buh. That's just crap you made up (or parrotted). There IS something supernatural in this world, and it isn't the "law of karma".
"if you do bad with ill intent misfortune will come to you at some point"
So a 7 year old girl who is raped and chopped into pieces got that because she took an extra cookie from the cookie jar, right? No wonder you are a sick fuck.
"I don't think having a different opinion than you on who is a racist, who is a murderer, or what rapes and murders are good (none) and what ones are bad (due entirely to your political persuasion; Guess Who?) constitutes a sin."
Buh, the trouble is that the important weapons of the world are under democratic control. As such, your opinion has a real effect on what those weapons do. You are effectively taking those weapons away from a policeman and allowing a rapist to continue raping. As such, you are an accessory to rape. That is indeed a sin, and with karma in force, you will be end up being one of those women being raped, or one of those men having their tongues cut out. THAT is justice. And is entirely what you deserve. You're damn lucky you're going to get let off on a technicality.
buh, "self righteous air of "superiority" or whatever it is."
That would be what you do when you accuse Bush of various things which he is completely innocent of, along with people on wall street blah blah blah.
We accuse you of things you actually did, the same way a court would. And it is in fact superior to be anti-rape than an accessory to rape. Ditto for tongue-chopping etc etc.
Paul
"That's not a lie, Foddy."
Boy, how you wriggle! To say that "The three pillars of Islam are "the golden rule" (do unto others as you would have others do unto you), "fight subjugation" and "empathy for strangers" is an out and out lie. If you mean "I have decided that the three pillars of modern Mu'tazilah (of which I am the only follower) are . . ." that is an entirely different thing. But you didn't. Your statement above is - beyond any dispute - a lie (and apparently done deliberately, in the hope that no-one would call you on it). Bad luck.
Foddy, "Boy, how you wriggle!"
You're desperate, Foddy.
"To say that "The three pillars of Islam are "the golden rule" (do unto others as you would have others do unto you), "fight subjugation" and "empathy for strangers" is an out and out lie."
No it isn't, Foddy. The same way that Christians say that "stone your own children to death" means "don't stone your own children to death", I can have whatever damn interpretation I want too. What do you expect reformed Islam to look like anyway? Plenty of people in the West are hoping and waiting for a reformed version of Islam. How the hell do you think they expect it to be reformed (via a Reformation) if you're NOT ALLOWED to reform it according to Foddy?
"If you mean "I have decided that the three pillars of modern Mu'tazilah (of which I am the only follower) are . . .""
You can combine that with "and Mu'tazilah is true Islam" (as I have rationally determined), and you have the original.
"that is an entirely different thing."
Nope. No more than when the Protestants did it. Or anyone else for that matter (and there's heaps and heaps of them). And the Sufi too. Hell, most Muslims reinterpret the bible too, converting "love thy enemy" into "hate thy enemy" etc etc. Most Christians too for that matter.
"But you didn't."
This is religion, Foddy. Interpretation is up to each individual.
"Your statement above is - beyond any dispute - a lie"
No it isn't, Foddy. It's a religious interpretation of the Quran.
"(and apparently done deliberately, in the hope that no-one would call you on it)"
Foddy, you are as thick as a brick. I expected every damn Muslim to call me on it. They're taught from the age of 0 that there are 5 things they must do in order to get into Heaven. And they're all crap things. That's what I sought to change. Replace the stupid 5 pillars that other Muslims follow with 3 decent ones for people to follow.
BTW, in times past, those 5 pillars were seen by some sects as metaphorical and that there were no such requirements. I see that too. I never claimed it was popularly accepted. That's why I detest most Muslims. There was a time when slavery was accepted by Christians too. It says in the bible that you can do it. Says so in the Quran too.
As usual, you're projecting your own tendency to lie through your back teeth onto others, even trying to stretch someone's religious interpretation into a lie. You're that desperate.
Paul,
"The same way that Christians say that "stone your own children to death" means "don't stone your own children to death","
Which Christians advocate stoning their own children to death?
"The three pillars of Islam are . . ."
NO, THEY'RE NOT. If you meant "the three Pillars of Mu'tazilah Islam", that is what you should have said, but you didn't. Just admit your mistake and move on. Elsewhere in your silly "bible", which is a mixture of political dogma and quack moralising, you make a clear distinction between Mu'tazilah - which you sometimes seem to call True Islam - (a "religion" with a total following of one person worldwide), and Islam itself. For example you say "This is why Mohammed was willing to spread Islam by force". If "Islam" means "Mu'talizah Islam", then that statement is a lie. You can't have it both ways.
Acknowledge the fact that you lied and move on.
"I expected every damn Muslim to call me on it." Well, by saying that, you're effectively admitting that it was a lie! How come you're not prepared just to come out and say it. "I lied about the pillars of Islam, to get a reaction from Muslims."
But of course the real joke is that no one reads or cares a shit about your blog anyway. I'm just trying to get you to realise it yourself, and go back for more treatment.
Don't have time or energy to respond to all the above. There is no question in my mind that organized religions can be reformed, and that seemingly intractable disputes in dogma can be explained away, if there is a will to do so and a leader to guide the way. I have seen it.
I think most organized religions began as a positive means of regulating people's behavior, for what was perceived as their own good and the good of society. Most have gone astray from time to time. Most were hijacked at one time or another by rulers to consolidate power or motivate the masses for war.
Christianity has morphed over time from a religion that supported conquering foreign lands and forcibly converting people, approving polygamy and slavery, instilling fear of damnation to regulate behavior, to, in its modern, prevalent form in the U.S., one that is focused primarily on caring for well-being of its adherents and committing good works toward others.
Protestant Christianity in the American South has morphed considerably in my short lifetime, from condoning racism to being on the front lines against it, from believing that women should be obedient to husband in marriage to being equal partners in all things. Also returning to historical focus on being stewards of the environment. All that is needed is inspired leadership in the church to make change happen.
If Paul is looking for a way to speed up the reformation of Islam by changing its core focus, then I would be wholly in support of such an effort. If Islam is not able to peacefully coexist in its present form, it must either reform or be extinguished. We're glad to help in either way.
paul, YOU are full, as usual, of shit. How dare you threaten me like you are some sort of deity, when you just admitted that you've been hospitalized for your delusional daydreams!
Women in Iraq and Afghanistan are being raped now, asshole, more in Iraq than before, and women now must wear "traditional" moslem attire, i.e., keep their head covered, just like for the taliban. The northern alliance rapes, most likely more than the taliban did, and of course they don't punish themselves for their crimes. karzai is in it for the money. The taliban are probably stronger now than before the invasion, and no one seems to want to fight them, including Canada. The main problem is mis-management by the US and northern alliance. Most of the money is lining pockets, like in Iraq.
Iraq. Women could walk the street before, that is, to go somewhere, but now they are risking rape, kidnapping, murder; if they venture out. They must keep their heads covered. The Kurdish area may still be better, but they were an independent, functioning democracy from the time of the clinton no-fly zone enforcement, which crippled the rest of Iraq, up to the invasion, Since then, it too has become more unstable. I'm not going to say that saddam's government didn't rape but you have no documentation of the numbers, now you claim Iran's government sanctions rape, you probably say Syria does. If you think these nations have more rape than Iraq right now, or are even close, you're more full of shit than I previously thought, and I knew that you were FULL of shit from the beginning.
You think you refute arguments!?
"You're the racist, buh, Foddy." Such persuasive challenges you make!
nonadas is smarter than you, and that's not a compliment to him. I'm not sure that you are mentally ill, just a self centered asshole most likely born into priviledge who doesn't want he and his fellow elitists to have to share their unnecessarily large piece of an increasingly stretched pie. You probably said that you were mentsally ill because you were to lazy to get a job and your parents had had it with supporting you.
Did you hear that Israel plans to destroy a 700 year old mosque because it was built without a permit? This is about as sensible as your stupid statement that native Australians don't have any right to the land because they didn't have a claim on it!! You incredibly stupid dick!! They had no more idea that an outside world existed than the outside world knew of them!! "Ownership" was most likely not a part of their culture, I'm actually positive that it wasn't. People like you are a big part of what's wrong with the world. But among the neocons you claim to be one of, you must be alone as a Halocaust denier, denyer, whatever. You've never won an argument, so quit acting so high and mighty, WAR BOY!
Hey batman, this won't take long to respond to. Tell me who the good economists are, how many times do I have to ask you this? Could it be that they all suck?
Yeah, bush has got a real strong economy allright. That's why he wants to cut $200 bilion from our hard earned social security and medicare. Of course he wants to increase the war machine budget and the bogus "homeland security." The wars are not included in the budget, what kind of bullshit is that?
Batman
"If Islam is not able to peacefully coexist in its present form, it must either reform or be extinguished."
Some of what you say above makes sense, but this is total idiocy. There are 1,500,000,000 Muslims. Are you going to slaughter all of them who don't agree to 'reform'?
Foddy,
PE:"The same way that Christians say that "stone your own children to death" means "don't stone your own children to death","
"Which Christians advocate stoning their own children to death?"
None, despite the fact that it clearly says to do exactly that in the bible. Those Christians who even pretend that the bible is remotely meant to be followed go through and spin every single thing you quote so that it means what modern Christianity says it does. So too with Islam, now.
PE:"The three pillars of Islam are . . ."
"NO, THEY'RE NOT."
YES THEY ARE. In MY interpretation. Just as every Christian is entitled to "interpret" the above passage from the bible, so to can I with the Quran.
"If you meant "the three Pillars of Mu'tazilah Islam", that is what you should have said, but you didn't."
There's only one true Islam - Mu'tazilah Islam. All the rest are kaffirs. Just as you will see Catholics calling Proestants non-Christians and vice-versa (some anyway, same as with Islam).
"Just admit your mistake and move on."
No, just admit that I have a reformed Islam and move on.
"Elsewhere in your silly "bible", which is a mixture of political dogma"
There's not a scrap of dogma in it.
"and quack moralising"
Nothing quack about it. It has excellent morals outlined in it. Best in the world in fact.
"you make a clear distinction between Mu'tazilah - which you sometimes seem to call True Islam - (a "religion" with a total following of one person worldwide), and Islam itself."
I do? So clear that I managed to miss it myself, even though I'm the author?
"For example you say "This is why Mohammed was willing to spread Islam by force"."
Yep. That's my interpretation of his behaviour.
"If "Islam" means "Mu'talizah Islam", then that statement is a lie."
Says who? Mohammed? You asked him?
"You can't have it both ways."
What ways?
"Acknowledge the fact that you lied and move on."
No, just acknowledge the fact that you're full of shit as usual and move on.
PE:"I expected every damn Muslim to call me on it."
"Well, by saying that, you're effectively admitting that it was a lie!"
Nope. I'm admitting that I've got a radical interpretation. What the hell sort of religious debate do you expect in Islam in order to produce a reformed version as many in the West are waiting (impatiently) for? I got sick of waiting for it myself. Simpler to just hop in and do the debate myself.
"How come you're not prepared just to come out and say it. "I lied about the pillars of Islam, to get a reaction from Muslims.""
It's not a lie. Any more than Christians are lying when they call themselves Christians while refusing to stone their own children to death.
"But of course the real joke is that no one reads or cares a shit about your blog anyway."
That's a tragedy, not a joke. You're the joke. Actually you're a tragedy too.
"I'm just trying to get you to realise it yourself, and go back for more treatment."
It's you that needs treatment for socoipathy, Foddy. Go and tell the doctors that you're an accessory to institutionalized rape and take it from there.
Paul
Stoning children comes from the Old Testament, and is one of the many strictures which were superseded by Christ and the New Testament (but you knew that, didn't you?).
"you make a clear distinction between Mu'tazilah - which you sometimes seem to call True Islam - (a "religion" with a total following of one person worldwide), and Islam itself.
"I do? So clear that I managed to miss it myself, even though I'm the author?""
So everywhere you mention "Islam" in your silly quack moralistic and dogma-ridden "bible" it means Mu'tazilah Islam. Is that right? Yes or no?
buh, "paul, YOU are full, as usual, of shit."
No buh, that's just because you have constructed an Orwellian world for yourself.
"How dare you threaten me like you are some sort of deity"
Perhaps because I am?
"when you just admitted that you've been hospitalized for your delusional daydreams!"
I was hospitalized for being distressed over humans being killed unnecessarily now that a solution was available, and instead of the doctors walking through the logic, they made a misdiagnosis. Certainly not the first misdiagnosis in human history either. There's a long line of quackery in that profession. Later on they violated NSW law.
"Women in Iraq and Afghanistan are being raped now, asshole"
In every country in the world in fact. The difference is NOW IT IS ILLEGAL MORON and you can report the crime to the police, instead of the police being the ones who did it!
"more in Iraq than before"
That may or may not be true, I don't have stats (nor do you). The difference is now if the Iraqi people think they have a problem with rapists, they can hire more police. Before the police were the ones doing the raping. MORON.
"and women now must wear "traditional" moslem attire, i.e., keep their head covered"
Bullshit. There is no such Iraqi law requiring that. And even if there way, the Iraqi people would be empowered to change it.
"just like for the taliban."
Exactly NOT like the Taliban in fact. Under the Taliban, women were beaten with sticks for not covering up. In Iraq if anyone lays a finger on you you can report it to the police, the media, the international media, the Americans, anyone you damn well want.
"The northern alliance rapes, most likely more than the taliban did"
That may or may not be true. It's irrelevant though, since the Northern Alliance HAS BEEN DISBANDED YOU MORON.
"and of course they don't punish themselves for their crimes."
No, that's what the independent judiciary is for.
"karzai is in it for the money."
You're projecting, buh. Regardless, if you don't like Karzai, tell the Afghan people to stop voting for him. Don't be surprised if they call you a MORON.
"The taliban are probably stronger now than before the invasion"
Maths is not your strong point, is it? They used to have 50,000 troops, state resources and the ability to conscript whoever they wanted. Now they've got a few thousand goons who are heavily outnumbered and outgunned and no state resources nor ability to conscript.
"and no one seems to want to fight them, including Canada."
That is not true. The ANA is more than willing to fight them. Don't take it from me. Go and ask Waheed. I specifically asked him both with US troops and with Afghan troops, whether they wanted to fight or were just in it for the money. They are BOTH professional and want to go and kill the enemy, and are pissed off when they're being used for guard duty etc.
"The main problem is mis-manageme
mis-management by the US and northern alliance."
No buh, the main problem is moronic civilians like you.
"Most of the money is lining pockets, like in Iraq."
Very unlikely. And you just made that up anyway.
"Iraq. Women could walk the street before, that is, to go somewhere, but now they are risking rape, kidnapping, murder"
They always risked that. Before they risked that even from their own government. Now the government is on their side. A huge difference, buh. Of course you didn't notice that in your fantasy world.
"if they venture out. They must keep their heads covered."
There is no such requirement from their government. There is a requirement from their government that no-one who is unveiled can be touched, and anyone who violates that risks being caught and sent to jail.
"The Kurdish area may still be better, but they were an independent, functioning democracy from the time of the clinton no-fly zone enforcement, which crippled the rest of Iraq, up to the invasion"
Sure. That's one of the reasons why we thought we could do better than Saddam via invasion. And we were right. Maliki is a hell of a long way from Saddam.
"Since then, it too has become more unstable."
No it hasn't. You just made that up.
"I'm not going to say that saddam's government didn't rape"
Good. That means there's one mistake you're not going to make.
"but you have no documentation of the numbers"
Correct. Saddam didn't keep numbers, we only have the reports of some of the rapes he ordered, and some of the women he abducted. Regardless, even if he only raped ONE woman, unless he is tried in court for that, it means your government is criminal and you have NO RIGHTS AT ALL. You are a slave. BTW, have you watched the video of the far worse (in my opinion) chopping of tongues? Link is on this blog.
"now you claim Iran's government sanctions rape"
The reports are that it ORDERS it, not just turns a blind eye to it. And even worse is the murder and the eye-chopping.
"you probably say Syria does"
This is the problem when you make crap up instead of being a scientist and actually ASKING for information you have no idea about. No, I haven't seen reports on rape in Syria. North Korea yes. Zimbabwe yes. Not Syria, Saudi Arabia or "Palestine". But don't worry, there's other things we can get Syria for. Subjugating millions of people for starters.
"If you think these nations have more rape than Iraq right now, or are even close, you're more full of shit than I previously thought"
I KNOW you're full of shit, because you don't have reliable numbers on either situation and regardless, what's important is what the GOVERNMENT's policy on rape is.
"and I knew that you were FULL of shit from the beginning."
Only in your Orwellian world, buh.
"You think you refute arguments!?"
Yep.
PE:"You're the racist, buh, Foddy."
"Such persuasive challenges you make!"
I
I've already explained multiple times why you are racist, buh. Thinking brown people don't have human rights is just one of them. You fail to counter these things.
"nonadas is smarter than you"
Coming from your Orwellian worldview, I'll take that as a compliment.
"and that's not a compliment to him."
I know. That's the nature of Orwellian worlds.
"I'm not sure that you are mentally ill, just a self centered asshole"
I'm sure you're a racist sociopath. I may well be a self-centred arsehole if you disclude the enormous effort I go to to protect innocent people from crime etc.
"most likely born into priviledge"
This is the problem with you, buh. One of the many problems. You just can't conceive that my worldview is possible unless I'm in some mould you have created. When I don't fit that mould, instead of realising that your entire logic process and worldview is faulty - really badly faulty - and apologize and change it - you just weasel out.
"who doesn't want he and his fellow elitists to have to share their unnecessarily large piece of an increasingly stretched pie."
Actually the pie in the US grows at about 2-3% every year which is why you have a ridiculously high standard of living and are the fattest people in the world.
"You probably said that you were mentsally ill because you were to lazy to get a job and your parents had had it with supporting you."
I never said I was mentally ill at all. I said I was misdiagnosed as that when I was THIRTY-SEVEN. I won't tell you what age I started working and how much money I inherited because I want to see you get more and more rope around your neck as you continue along this line.
"Did you hear that Israel plans to destroy a 700 year old mosque because it was built without a permit?"
No I didn't. And I don't believe any judge in Israel would have handed out an order saying "the people who built this should have obtained a permit from our non-existent government 700 years ago". But if you give me a link, I'll show you which bit your misreported/misunderstood. Not sure why you care so much about mosques instead of Iraqi men's tongues though. Oh, sorry. I remember now. Racist.
"This is about as sensible as your stupid statement that native Australians don't have any right to the land because they didn't have a claim on it!!"
I didn't say that. I do say that they have no more right to land than me because they have a different skin colour. That is racist. That's what you are, buh, not me.
"You incredibly stupid dick!!"
Orwellian world again.
"They had no more idea that an outside world existed than the outside world knew of them!! "Ownership" was most likely not a part of their culture, I'm actually positive that it wasn't."
And? Can't see anything in that paragraph that says the Australian government should be passing racist laws to satisfy racists like you.
"People like you are a big part of what
what's wrong with the world."
I'm a big part of what's wrong in your Orwellian world. In the real world, I'm the guy who devoted his life to fixing it, and eliminating racist dogmatic scum like you from the face of the planet.
"But among the neocons you claim to be one of, you must be alone as a Halocaust denier, denyer, whatever."
I don't know how many neocons are aware of www.simulation-argument.com and think it is a plausible explanation. I don't even know if the author himself is a neocon.
"You've never won an argument"
In your Orwellian world I lose every time. I agree. That is the direct consequence of winning in the real world.
"so quit acting so high and mighty, WAR BOY!"
I act high and mighty because as it turns out I happen to be the only person on the planet who took the exact correct course of action in response to the rape of Iraqi women. RAPE BOY.
Foddy, "Stoning children comes from the Old Testament, and is one of the many strictures which were superseded by Christ and the New Testament"
Bullshit. He said the exact opposite in Matthew 5 verses 17-20.
"(but you knew that, didn't you?)."
Nope. And if Christians knew that, which they don't, they should have deleted that bit from the bible in case someone actually followed it. But they didn't, because they don't.
"you make a clear distinction between Mu'tazilah - which you sometimes seem to call True Islam - (a "religion" with a total following of one person worldwide), and Islam itself.
PE:"I do? So clear that I managed to miss it myself, even though I'm the author?""
"So everywhere you mention "Islam" in your silly quack moralistic and dogma-ridden "bible" it means Mu'tazilah Islam. Is that right? Yes or no?"
The bit about quack and dogma is "no". The bit about the definition of "Islam", yes. That's what Islam means to me. Mohammed could see that Jesus's pacificism COULDN'T WORK. I discovered that for myself as a child and via various experiments in pacifism realised it was a horrible ideology and I just needed to tie down exactly who to fight. Mohammed's perpetual war is exactly what is required. And without Mohammed, Islam, Muslims, 9/11 and the Iraq war, I could never have written message 666.
Batman, "If Paul is looking for a way to speed up the reformation of Islam by changing its core focus, then I would be wholly in support of such an effort."
Why leave it up to me instead of doing it yourself?
"If Islam is not able to peacefully coexist in its present form"
It isn't. There are explicit instructions in the Quran to kill non-believers and a percentage of people are acting on those instructions, or passing on those instructions to their children, and waiting for the day when they are strong enough to act on those instructions.
"it must either reform or be extinguished."
Yep. 9/11 was the final straw.
"We're glad to help in either way."
In what way are you willing to assist in the reformation of Islam?
I'm not sure why you aren't just doing it yourself.
However, if you want to assist this Muslim to defeat the Muslims he doesn't like (ie the non-Mu'tazilah Muslims), I will give you a list of 1.5 billion people I want your military to issue "convert or die" instructions to. Actually, they can have a choice of converting to either the Mu'tazilah sect of Islam, or any sect of any other religion, or agnosticism or atheism.
Paul
"It is necessary to reform the practice of Islam before restoring a useful caliphate. This document outlines the required reforms."
You have to reform Mu'tazilah? How confusing! In what ways? I thought you'd already made it perfect (being God)?
Foddy, "You have to reform Mu'tazilah?"
The kaffir sects need to be reformed to the non-kaffir sects. And even the extinct Mu'tazilah sect needed reformation with centuries of scientic progress. That's the difference between common Islam and TRUE Islam.
"How confusing! In what ways? I thought you'd already made it perfect (being God)?"
No. If you had bothered to read it, you would see that it explicitly says, right upfront, that this is a guide only, should not be treated as a dogma, and should be updated with newly available science.
That's what True Islam is.
Don't you know anything about Islam?!
Paul, I don't think you know what true Islam is.
Islam is a cult followed by 1.5 billion subhumans, most of them are violent terorists, murderers and thugs.
Islam teaches to surrender and submit (That's what Islam means, not peace) to the guidence of the Qur'an, posibly one of the most militant text ever written. They actually believe that when they are told to kill non-believers that's what God wrote.
That's why Islam has only brought violence and destruction in whichever part of the world has been subjugated by this cult.
Nonadas, "Paul, I don't think you know what true Islam is."
Who do you think gets to define "true Islam"? Ditto for "true Christianity".
"Islam is a cult followed by 1.5 billion subhumans, most of them are violent terorists, murderers and thugs."
First of all you are a religious bigot by calling all Muslims subhuman, which even includes children. And when you add in women, you've got a majority that could never be considered terrorists, murderers and thugs. You do have a majority supporting terrorism though (ie Palestinian terrorism). But then you've got a majority of Europeans doing that too. And Jimmy Carter too. Voted in by the American people. And you've got racist treacherous Soviet agents like John Kerry getting 50% of the US vote too. It's a pretty sad world all around.
"Islam teaches to surrender and submit (That's what Islam means, not peace) to the guidence of the Qur'an"
It's more the other way around. Submit to God, and then the majority (not all - see The Religious Policeman as one example) believe that the Quran is the perfect word of God.
"posibly one of the most militant text ever written."
Absolutely. Building on the great foundation that is the bible, which authorizes slavery and stoning for various trumped up charges.
"They actually believe that when they are told to kill non-believers that's what God wrote."
That's right. And that's the problem to be solved. Go to your Christian neighbour and show them the bit in the bible that says "stone those who work on the Sabbath". Back that up with Matthew 5 verses 17-20. Then suggest that he goes and stones some checkout operators working on either Saturday or Sunday (his choice) while you videotape it. Report back on what happens. What you need to do is get Muslims to do the same thing.
"That's why Islam has only brought violence and destruction in whichever part of the world has been subjugated by this cult."
I don't think any religion has brought any good to the world. It is secular humanism (derivations of the Golden Rule) that has done that, and various religions steal credit for that.
Paul
"I don't think any religion has brought any good to the world. It is secular humanism (derivations of the Golden Rule) that has done that, and various religions steal credit for that."
Well, it seems we have something we agree on. But if that is the case, why on earth do you feel you have to join the party by hijacking a particular defunct sect of Islam? Europeans (and I guess Australians too?) are increasingly realising that Christianity should have no place of power in their world, and should, if anything, be an entirely private matter. Americans are moving very slowly indeed in that direction. Very slowly, if at all. Try standing for President of the US as an openly avowed Atheist and see where it gets you? Somehow America seems to have forgotten the words of Theodore Roosevelt exactly 100 years ago:
"To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life. . . .
If there is one thing for which we stand in this country, it is for complete religious freedom, and it is an emphatic negation of this right to cross-examine a man on his religion before being willing to support him for office."
Paul, I'll answer the above post later. First I just have to say:
"It's irrelevant though, since the Northern Alliance HAS BEEN DISBANDED YOU MORON."
Good work on beating the hell out of Buh. That little kid lives in his hate induced fantasy world where something can't be true unless it is reported on some far left wing fringe "news" somewhere.
"karzai is in it for the money."
Where do you get your sh1t from, buh? Grow up, boy. The world is not what you want it to be, it is what it is.
"Maths is not your strong point, is it?"
I don't think math, science, rational thinking, sanity, truth or any skill where he has to use his mind for something is his strong point. I really hope this spoiled little brat is big and athletic for his age. Ten years from now when this spoiled delusional child goes to college but still has not grown up mentally, his only hope to achieve something big for him is to make a name for himself in college football. He's not going to major in political science that's for sure.
"No buh, the main problem is moronic civilians like you."
You know buh would be just at home in those muscum countries. Millions of them all think just like this asswipe. He can go there and join them when his football career fails, like everything else in his pathetic existence.
"I'm not sure that you are mentally ill, just a self centered
Stop right there. Mentally ill or not, Paul is one of the nicest, good men I have ever seen. I can't say I've seen many people who actually want to help other people they don't know and who probably hate him. Did you know Paul donated $4000 to an Afghan friend to buy a new car on the condition that he buy supplies for his country's starving children?
I bet you did, but that finds no place within your own solid glass emotional bubble you live in. Truth doesn't matter when you can just make up some quick lies about Paul.
Let history be your guide, not childish emotions backed up by lies.
Nonadas
"Did you know Paul donated $4000 to an Afghan friend to buy a new car on the condition that he buy supplies for his country's starving children?"
Did you know that Paul advocates killing hundreds of millions of Iranians and Pakistanis and others? Oh, maybe you do too??
nonadas, I gave you way to much credit earlier. You are as stupid as paul.
Here is a man who says Foddy and myself live in "Orwellian Worlds", yet his world includes our entire history up to over twenty years past the "fake" halocaust as being a computer simulation. Every time someone mentions this he supposedly has some proof or logic to back up. That sure is beating the hell out of me, huh, you religious bigot. (paul's words)
Look idiots, the Soviet Union fell apart nearly twenty years ago, yet putin is in charge and has named a successor to win a most likely rigged elction. The nation still has a lot of soviet influence. LIKEWISE, whether the northern alliance was disbanded or not, the elected officials who you think rule Afghanistan so democratically have ties to, are influenced by, or are, most likely, the former northern alliance!
You guys don't look into news stories, you just accept everything as it's presented to you if it fits your world view. Conservatives like you two, a few others who've commented here are crybabies, like limbaugh, hannity, o'reilly, upset that everyone won't accept your arrogant opinions as fact. And those three, along with neil c rhinehart most likely and maybe even you two, will try to bully those who disagree with their greedy world view.
You're right, incredibly, about religions, but paul you claim to be god and you both think bombing nations is not really a bad thing, so what good are either of you for peace and (world) prosperity? Two huge hypocrits.
Your boy bush governs as though his mission is to destroy the world, and mccain looks like he could be just as bad. clinton and obama will havew to be forced to live up to their lofty rhetoric, they both have big ties to global capitalism. Great for assholes who think like you, but people are going to have to get off their ass and make something happen. All of us.
By the way paul, I was just messing with you when I said you were probably rich, lazy, etc. But you really didn't say that it isn't true. Interesting.
Football career?
buh
"Here is a man who says Foddy and myself live in "Orwellian Worlds", yet his world includes our entire history up to over twenty years past the "fake" holocaust as being a computer simulation."
It's quite extraordinary how consistently Paul misuses the word Orwellian! I wonder if he's ever read "1984". Somehow I doubt it. It's probably a word he heard somewhere recently (like 'fungible') and he likes to trot it out as often as he can to try to show he is smart. As usual, it backfires.
Here you have a Bush administration which has declared what could amount to a perpetual war (the so-called War on Terror), which has vastly increased surveillance on its own citizens and constantly impresses on them that terrorists are out to get them, and yet he calls us Orwellian! And that's before we get onto the Newspeak and Doublethink (e.g. calling suicidal terrorists "cowards" and naming a constriction of civil liberties the Patriot Act!).
Here is a man who says Foddy and myself live in "Orwellian Worlds", yet his world includes our entire history up to over twenty years past the "fake" halocaust as being a computer simulation.
Put "+bush +orwellian" into google and you get 869,000 hits; "+bush +totalitarian" and it's over 2,000,000.
By they way, I just came across the following, which shows Paul getting his ass handed to him in a sling! It seems people the world over have the same reaction to his lunacy:
http://tinyurl.com/yo765w
Wait a minute, there's more!
Paul REALLY getting reamed here (especially towards the end):
http://tinyurl.com/2vwf6l
Foddy,
"Well, it seems we have something we agree on. But if that is the case, why on earth do you feel you have to join the party by hijacking a particular defunct sect of Islam?"
Because it is the closest you can get to LOVING YOUR ENEMY without actually hurting anyone. If any Christians actually understood the bible they would see this. They don't. The Muslims have been brainwashed since birth to hate non-Muslims. The easiest way to defuse this conflict is to simply become a Muslim, and force these brainwashed souls to actually give some thought to who they're going to hate now that everyone is actually a Muslim. And in fact, if all the non-Muslims convert to Mu'tazilah, it will be THEY (the existing brainwashed Muslims) who are in the minority sect. If Bush converts to Islam (any sect), these nutcases may even stand down, because they've been taught that so long as they're ruled by a Muslim, everything's fine (even as that ruler rapes your daughter). It'll take decades to sort out this brainwashing (even worse than communist brainwashing). It is easier to do it from within than without.
"Europeans (and I guess Australians too?) are increasingly realising that Christianity should have no place of power in their world, and should, if anything, be an entirely private matter."
In Australia, Christianity has been effectively wiped out. 70% still tick the box "Christian" on the referendum, but it has zero meaning. I ticked "Muslim".
"Americans are moving very slowly indeed in that direction. Very slowly, if at all. Try standing for President of the US as an openly avowed Atheist and see where it gets you?"
Yep, they're a long way behind. Australia's 3rd-longest serving PM was an atheist and I never heard a single Australian give a damn about it. I've never once been discriminated against in this country because of my atheism. Not remotely. Not being a sports fan is a separate issue though.
"Somehow America seems to have forgotten the words of Theodore Roosevelt exactly 100 years ago"
They've also forgotten the words of the guy who said that America would "bear any burden" for freedom.
"By they way, I just came across the following, which shows Paul getting his ass handed to him in a sling!"
Only in your fertile imagination. In the real world, in both your links, every point was answered logically where one existed to be answered.
"It seems people the world over have the same reaction to his lunacy"
Just like that lunatic who said that the earth went around the sun when it was OBVIOUS to EVERYONE that it didn't.
Nonadas, "Paul is one of the nicest, good men I have ever seen."
Thank you for seeing that Nonadas. I was shocked that everyone else wasn't doing the same thing.
"I can't say I've seen many people who actually want to help other people they don't know and who probably hate him."
I think you'll find half of America supports rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq rather than just nuking them out of existence. But they do it collectively rather than individually. I do both. I think most Africans hate the Americans who are giving them aid too. I'm in no way unique there. The difference is that rather than waste money on Africa I have spent a lot of effort figuring out where to put my money so that it will actually make a difference. That place is Afghanistan and Iraq, in various ways. And I am definitely not giving it to people who hate me. I am giving it to people who have some semblance of responding to kindness. In this case I wanted Afghan kids to remember that US soldiers gave them free pens to help with their education, rather than only giving bombs.
"Did you know Paul donated $4000 to an Afghan friend to buy a new car on the condition that he buy supplies for his country's starving children?"
I've now donated something like US$8000 total to Afghanistan and Iraq. And it's mainly going to internet expenses or related. Other people are funding the pens and food so there's no need for me - I can't make a difference. But the bloggers were not funded. Not fully, anyway. Now everyone I need to be on the net is on the net. Waheed is on IRC, not blogging, at the moment. He is learning about his "Muslim brothers" first-hand. Ha ha. Still waiting to see what effect that will have. He has a lot more trouble getting someone to talk to him than I do though. It's unbelievable that people would rather talk to an Australian, who are a dime a dozen, than a free Afghan.
buh, "Here is a man who says Foddy and myself live in "Orwellian Worlds", yet his world includes our entire history up to over twenty years past the "fake" halocaust as being a computer simulation."
As POSSIBLY being a computer simulation. I never stated it as fact. It's hypothesis. You however make absolute statements about Bush with zero evidence, and in fact against strong evidence to the contrary.
"Every time someone mentions this he supposedly has some proof or logic to back up."
I have logic. So does the author of www.simulation-argument.com
"Look idiots, the Soviet Union fell apart nearly twenty years ago, yet putin is in charge and has named a successor to win a most likely rigged elction."
And? They still have a hell of a lot more freedom than they did before. And their arsehole leader pretty much reflects the arseholeness of the people themselves.
"The nation still has a lot of soviet influence."
Not sure what that's supposed to mean.
"LIKEWISE, whether the northern alliance was disbanded or not, the elected officials who you think rule"
As opposed to thinking that Wall Street does?
"Afghanistan so democratically have ties to, are influenced by, or are, most likely, the former northern alliance!"
If you have any complaints about this, take it up with the Afghan people who elected them.
"You guys don't look into news stories, you just accept everything as it's presented to you if it fits your world view."
Wrong. I verify reasons for things by chatting to people from around the world, to find out what is really driving them.
"Conservatives like you two, a few others who've commented here are crybabies, like limbaugh, hannity, o'reilly, upset that everyone won't accept your arrogant opinions as fact."
If it's arrogant to believe that Iraqi women have the right to not be raped, and that I/Bush/etc have the right to protect them, then yes, it's arrogant, and yes, I'm proud to be arrogant.
"try to bully those who disagree with their greedy world view."
It's you who has a greedy world view. We're the ones wanting to spend billions on useful foreign aid.
"You're right, incredibly, about religions, but paul you claim to be god and you both think bombing nations is not really a bad thing"
Same as rescuing hostages in Russian theatres in fact.
"so what good are either of you for peace"
If by "peace" you mean "allowing Saddam to fill mass graves", no, we're not good for that at all. We're good for freedom and human rights, not "peace".
"and (world) prosperity?"
For world prosperity I do my best to promote free market capitalism that we have in places like Australia, and good governance like in Australia. Or even better, Taiwan.
"Two huge hypocrits."
Show me the two statements/actions that would make me a hypocrite when placed side by side so that I can counter it. Otherwise, I'll assume it's just another specious argument.
"Your boy bush governs as though his mission is to destroy the world"
Liberate, not destroy.
"and mccain looks like he could be just as bad."
Minus the Orwellian speak, we're back to "just as good". I hope so.
"clinton and obama will havew to be forced to live up to their lofty rhetoric, they both have big ties to global capitalism."
Global capitalism is what makes our countries increase GDP at wonderful rates.
"Great for assholes who think like you, but people are going to have to get off their ass and make something happen."
Make what happen? Good governance in Iraq, Africa, etc? We're working on it.
"By the way paul, I was just messing with you when I said you were probably rich, lazy, etc. But you really didn't say that it isn't true. Interesting."
I told you I was giving you plenty or rope to hang yourself with. It's interesting that you don't understand English.
Read about some US sponsored murder, by goons nodoubt trained at the "school of the americas" in Georgia.
Written by one of the best war co
rrespondents of our time.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
nair...rn02062008.html
That link was provided by me, buh, I'm at work and don't want to print in the haloscan box.
"Because it is the closest you can get to LOVING YOUR ENEMY without actually hurting anyone. If any Christians actually understood the bible they would see this. They don't. The Muslims have been brainwashed since birth to hate non-Muslims. The easiest way to defuse this conflict is to simply become a Muslim, and force these brainwashed souls to actually give some thought to who they're going to hate now that everyone is actually a Muslim."
-----
Paul,
It will be a long, cold day in hell before I, or any American, agree to change our religion, the name of our religion, or any of our beliefs, principles, practices, traditions, or customs, or lack thereof, so that some nutbags half a world away will not feel justified in killing us.
We are serious about our religious/nonreligious freedom, and that means the right to be a total fruitcake, so long as you are not killing or harming others or trying to force everyone else to be fruitcakes. And we will kill those that try to take that away from us or harm us for not accepting their beliefs.
Religious terrorism, like any other kind, is more about intolerance and domination rather than any particular brand of religious dogma. One can believe pretty much whatever he wants to about God and how to live his own life, and still get along with his fellow man. It is when you want to CONTROL the beliefs and actions of others in the religious arena that you are a problem.
In fact, you can break any organized religion down to its most basic unit, say an individual church or even a single family, and you will find that differences in belief and practice exist that must be smoothed over. So the lesson is that tolerance of differences is required, regardless of what label you hang on people's practices.
Simply getting terrorists to agree to the same religion or even the same name or unifying banner for religion, will not relieve the problem. Take away religion, and most of the nutbags will find another excuse to exercise their intolerance and desire to exercise their perceived superiority and domination over others. (actually an undiagnosed inferiority complex)
"Europeans (and I guess Australians too?) are increasingly realising that Christianity should have no place of power in their world, and should, if anything, be an entirely private matter."
--------
Well, I'm glad Europeans are finally catching up. America outlawed state sponsored religion in the 1700's! Granted, it wasn't 100% enforced until the 1940's, (Justice Hugo Black, if I recall correctly) but still way ahead of the game.
batman, the good economists? Get your head out of your ass and come up with one!
I was in a hurry to post the link earlier as I was at work. But I want to say that Allan Nairn, the author of the counterpunch article, is one great correspondent.
Nairn and Amy Goodman were in East Timor in 1990, I believe, and were filming a march for democracy, basically, by the Timorese. They were overrun by the Indonesian army under our great democratic, peace loving ally, suharto, who had unconditional backing from the ford, carter, and reagan administrations to violently annex East Timor, which they began in 1975, I believe.
The two Americans were beaten but said their fate was mild compared to that of the Timorese, mainly Portugese speaking Catholics who meant absolutely nothing to the US and Australia. Many Timorese were shot and killed that day. An Australian correspondent stationed in East Timer was also kidnapped and killed by the Indonesians, I don't remember if it was in the seventies or later. paul, you should know all about this.
bush, sr. and clinton also aided in the war against the Timorese.
Somehow America seems to have forgotten the words of Theodore Roosevelt exactly 100 years ago:
"To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life. . . .
If there is one thing for which we stand in this country, it is for complete religious freedom, and it is an emphatic negation of this right to cross-examine a man on his religion before being willing to support him for office."
-----------------
Foddy,
I don't know what planet your living on, but Theodore Roosevelt's words you quoted above are still front and center with all Americans I know, from the most religious to the most secular.
The most evangelical Southern Baptists opposed a school prayer amendment to the Constitution because they did not want government officials telling their kids how they were supposed to pray. Lest we forget, it was state persecution of Baptist and other evangelical Christians in early American history that led to the separation of church and state that we treasure so much.
American Christians largely supported liberation of Iraq because it made sense by every conceivable measure of rationality and faith, to try to help them attain what we have achieved, so that they will have something to live for other than hating us.
And American Christians, especially rural Southerners, are more likely to step up and shoulder a greater burden to try to help others than their more secular, metropolitan counterparts. Read the stories about those spectacular young men that are trying to help Iraqis build a new civilization, and see where they come from, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, South Carolina.
If losing your religion means that you also lose your willingness and your balls to march to war to help liberate other people, then Europe deserves to be overrun by radical Islam.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/
200...ose_protect.php
Buh,
Here is a list of 1028 good economists.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/11...09s02-
coop.html
I like this guy also. Confirms what I have been saying all along that converting Iraq from a rentier state to capitalism is every bit as important as converting it from dictatorship to democracy.
http://www.ideachannel.com/friedman.htm
Of course, here is probably the most brilliant economist ever, but he was not able to sign the above petition because he recently passed away.
http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/fr...es/
friedman.htm
There are mountains and mountains of materials on the web about Milton Friedman. He is pretty much the Godfather of modern, American prosperity. I won't try to post them all, but here is one more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g...h?
v=g2kTy7glZ9s
This is required viewing, in my opinion, for everyone, but especially for Buh. It is a video piecing together clips from old interviews of Milton Friedman to debate Naomi Klein on the merits of capitalism.
Before you start it, grab hold of your volume control and don't let go, because you have to turn it way up for the old clips of Friedman, and back down for the clips of Klein. Someone needs to re-record it with the volume equalized.
Batman
"Foddy,
I don't know what planet your living on, but Theodore Roosevelt's words you quoted above are still front and center with all Americans I know, from the most religious to the most secular."
You're the one living in a fantasy land. Why don't you tell me which of the original presidential candidates (11 in total, I think?) professes to be an atheist? An atheist simply would not have a chance of getting elected, so even if you don't have a religious bone in your body, you have to pretend to.
All candidates are regularly questioned about their religious beliefs, so Roosevelt's words are being ignored without a shade of a doubt.
Sorry
The last words should have read "without a shadow of a doubt".
Batman
"We are serious about our religious/nonreligious freedom, and that means the right to be a total fruitcake, so long as you are not killing or harming others or trying to force everyone else to be fruitcakes. And we will kill those that try to take that away from us or harm us for not accepting their beliefs."
I guess that you're going to be knocking on Paul's door pretty soon, then? He clearly wants you to be a fruitcake.
Paul,
I guess you missed this, which I addressed to buh?
"It's quite extraordinary how consistently Paul misuses the word Orwellian! I wonder if he's ever read "1984". Somehow I doubt it. It's probably a word he heard somewhere recently (like 'fungible') and he likes to trot it out as often as he can to try to show he is smart. As usual, it backfires.
Here you have a Bush administration which has declared what could amount to a perpetual war (the so-called War on Terror), which has vastly increased surveillance on its own citizens and constantly impresses on them that terrorists are out to get them, and yet he calls us Orwellian! And that's before we get onto the Newspeak and Doublethink (e.g. calling suicidal terrorists "cowards" and naming a constriction of civil liberties the Patriot Act!).
Put "+bush +orwellian" into google and you get 869,000 hits; "+bush +totalitarian" and it's over 2,000,000.
The Orwellian cap clearly fits Bush.
He didn't miss it, Foddy, the hypocrit hasn't made up a "specious argument" yet, whatever that is.
Yeah, real good, batman, 1028 so-called economists who evidently think that our current relationship with China is a healthy one for us, and some guy who thinks free trade and having everything made by people earning pennies an hour brings world peace.
To answer his question, no free trade doesn't depress wages here, it eliminates jobs and industries, taking wages completely away!
No more time tonight, I'll look into friedman, but can't play youtube on my computer.
I saw Naomi Klein kick greenspan's ass in an actual debate, and I'm sure that I would take her over friedman any day as well.
Foddy, "The Orwellian cap clearly fits Bush."
Foddy, I didn't miss it. I just have nothing to say. You swap the definition of good and bad which is why I call you Orwellian. But I don't dispute the claim of perpetual war etc. Even after the entire world is a clone of Taiwan and everyone is in NATO, we need perpetual war because freedom is too precious and we can never let down our guard. We won't need tanks, nukes etc though. Just vigilence to check that no-one in the world is developing these things.
buh, "To answer his question, no free trade doesn't depress wages here, it eliminates jobs and industries, taking wages completely away!"
So said the Luddites centuries ago. Australia has come pretty damn close to implementing free trade in my lifetime, and the economy has restructured in that time, as it always does, and as the Luddites found out, and we've currently got the lowest unemployment rate for 30 years. Or it was something like that last time I heard, anyway.
"I saw Naomi Klein kick greenspan's ass in an actual debate"
This is from the man who thinks that he's beaten me in debate. Orwellian world again...
Batman, "It will be a long, cold day in hell before I, or any American, agree to change our religion, the name of our religion, or any of our beliefs, principles, practices, traditions, or customs, or lack thereof, so that some nutbags half a world away will not feel justified in killing us."
It is sad that there are no Christians in America, but nevermind. Just go ahead and slaughter 1.5 billion Muslims, and when you reach the Pearly Gates and you're asked "couldn't you think of some other way of defusing this conflict without mass slaughter", see how that "cold day in Hell" line goes down when you're asked what you thought "love thy enemy", which is the only novel thing in the bible, meant. And whether the Jesus depicted in the bible was the sort of gun-slinging "cold day in Hell" model for you to follow, or something very very different.
BTW, I didn't say to change beliefs/customs etc. I just suggested saying 3 little words - "I'm a Muslim". But you'd rather see 1.5 billion die than those words? Note that I acknowledge that the Muslims are the aggressors, and you are within your rights to insist that they cease and desist, or die. And you should in fact do that, which is perferable to doing nothing (least worst option out of the 2). But there is something you can do above that. Do I look like someone who would surrender to foreign fruitcakes to you?
"We are serious about our religious/nonreligious freedom, and that means the right to be a total fruitcake, so long as you are not killing or harming others or trying to force everyone else to be fruitcakes."
That's fine.
"And we will kill those that try to take that away from us or harm us for not accepting their beliefs."
That's fine too. You're within your rights to do so. It is only an appeal to "love thy enemy" that would make you take the extra step. Pity only 1 person on the entire planet took the extra step, and he turned out to be an ex-Christian.
"Simply getting terrorists to agree to the same religion or even the same name or unifying banner for religion, will not relieve the problem."
How do you know? Many of these people thought there was nothing wrong with Saddam, since he was a Muslim ruler. They are religious bigots. You must either kill or reform these religious bigots. To reform them, teach them to be anti-religious bigots. How many centuries did it take to teach Christians that? As a short-term solution, why not just pretend to agree to be a Muslim (whatever the hell that means - have you seen the divergence between the Muslim bloggers?).
"Take away religion, and most of the nutbags will find another excuse to exercise their intolerance and desire to exercise their perceived superiority and domination over others."
Ever bothered to talk to any of these people? They have been thoroughly indoctrinated to divide the world up into Muslims and non-Muslims. They're not really looking for an excuse to be intolerant. They genu
genuinely believe that non-Muslims are scum and Muslims are brothers. Really. At the end of the day, they are victims of child abuse (indoctrination).
"(actually an undiagnosed inferiority complex)"
I wouldn't even say that. They genuinely believe that Muslims are superior, that Islam is a complete religion.
"And American Christians, especially rural Southerners, are more likely to step up and shoulder a greater burden to try to help others than their more secular, metropolitan counterparts."
America's strength derives from it's GDP rather than brave individuals, and it's the city folk who are reponsible for that. The country people are the ones getting wheat subsidies.
"If losing your religion means that you also lose your willingness and your balls to march to war to help liberate other people, then Europe deserves to be overrun by radical Islam."
Losing your religion doesn't mean any such thing. It's the arsehole church groups in Australia who are the biggest bunch of sell-out pacifists. And the Russians are an example of atheists with balls. There was a blog by an American atheist soldier who called himself "Godless kinser" or something.
The Europeans still tick the box that says "Christian" too. Not sure what "losing your religion" means to you. Becoming tolerant? Using the scientific process? Have you lost your religion or do you still stone those who work on the Sabbath?
BTW Batman, if you didn't have very good logic skills, and you GENUINELY believed that there was a Jewish/American conspiracy to exterminate/enslave Arabs/Muslims, and you thought that every action you saw in the world was an attempt to get closer to that goal, and that people like Saddam were the only chance of preventing that from happening, how would you feel? Would you feel threatened? What would you do about that threat?
You're in America. I'm not. We have no nukes to protect us. If America decides to enslave Australians, there's not a damn thing we can do about it other than die on our feet. I have confidence that that's not going to happen because I believe that the American people are pretty much the same as the Australian people and I am familiar with the culture etc. However, what if I was wrong and this was all a ruse by the Americans to get Australians to let down our guard? Disaster! It's not possible for you to feel that, because you are from the impregnable only-possible-to-be-enslavers. But try to imagine.
Especially try to imagine the feelings of an Arab Muslim with essentially no common history or culture with those Americans. No conceivable reason for Americans to be nice to you. Not conceivable in your own culture, anyway (which is what they live in). All this even before the indoctrination about America doing various atrocities (ask buh for a list).
Try to put yourself there for one moment. Is it conceivable that these people, with a lower IQ, poor logic skills, hopeless education, indoctrination, being in different racial, national and religious grouping, might have a slightly different reaction to America's war machine (always on the move and growing ridiculously strong compared to anyone at all) than some guy in Australia?
Perhaps you should try really really hard to avoid a bloodbath? Are you trying really really hard?
Paul
"I just have nothing to say."
Well, I certainly agree with that! But for someone with nothing to say, you certainly take up a lot of space doing it.
"You swap the definition of good and bad which is why I call you Orwellian."
Do you have any idea what Orwellian means? Have you ever read "1984"???
http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/zyprexa
For u Paul
Cos u seem to have flushed ur meds
Perhaps you should try really really hard to avoid a bloodbath? Are you trying really really hard?
Paul Edwards, Mu'tazilite | Homepage | 2008-02-08 - 21:20 | #
--------
I'm not trying to take personal credit for what my fellow countrymen and women are doing, (aside from voting for George Bush twice, and John McCain) but yes, Americans are trying ENORMOUSLY HARD to bring Iraq and Afghanistan into this century, to enjoy the freedoms and prosperity that we enjoy, and hopefully to plant a seed that will expand into the rest of the Muslim world, PRECISELY TO AVOID the kind of bloodbath you describe.
And yes, that part about "love thy enemy" is one of those religious texts that is subject to interpretation. Tough love is what we are trying to do.
Naomi Klein is an ignoramus, still fighting old, losing economic arguments of the 60's and 70's, of which Friedman was the primary warrior for free markets, which prevailed in overwhelming fashion. Her anti-captialist positions have suffered crushing, final defeat, yet she continues to prattle on like an ignorant child that is not capable of understanding how ridiculous she sounds to anyone that is even half-way knowledgeable on the subject.
Greenspan is more of a technocrat than a debater like Friedman was. It is delicious to see the old, ressurected talk-show clips of Friedman from the old days when the debate over free markets versus socialism was unsettled.
Nevertheless, Greenspan, now in his late 80's, was still quite effective in this excerpt from the interview he and Klein gave together to one of those crazy left wing organizations:
"ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, let me ask you a question, which—you are just taking the capitalist system, to state it very bluntly, and say it’s deficient here, it’s deficient there, it’s deficient every other place. The capitalist system has created more economic wealth in the last seven or eight years around the world. And as I said before, it’s had huge effects in the developing world. Hundreds of millions of people have come out of poverty. And as a consequence of this, not on the basis of populist policies, but on the basis of policies which relate to markets, it strikes me that—you know, you can say all of the problems that exist in market economies—and in my book, you will find, I am very much aware of all of them in great detail.
The question you have to answer, however, is: what system works better? And I think the evidence going back to the Enlightenment of the early part of the eighteenth century and all of the events that occurred with respect to what’s happened to the world since then has demonstrated that this system is the only one that seems to work well. I mean, all forms of socialist structure, which you seem to be implicitly in favor of, have failed. So the question is—
AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein?
NAOMI KLEIN: Actually, I am referring to mixed economies here. I’m not—
ALAN GREENSPAN:—what is [inaudible] issue here?
NAOMI KLEIN: Actually, I’m referring to mixed economies here. I’m not referring to state socialism.
ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, the question is, when you begin to talk in terms of changing what you’re implicitly saying—and I’ve heard this story before—you have to say, what are you changing in favor of? And we’ve had regrettable problems throughout the world every time we’ve moved in the direction you’re implying. The poverty level has gone up, not down.
NAOMI KLEIN: Well, Mr. Greenspan, I think it’s worth remembering that the word “populist” simply means popular. So, obviously, a lot of people disagree with your assessment of the benefits of—
ALAN GREENSPAN: A lot of people disagree with my assessment, a lot of people disagree with yours.
NAOMI KLEIN: A
Naturally you focus on greenspan's supposed strong point in the debate.
Democracy Now is not a crazy left wing organization, it's one of the few honest news sources out there.
You guys are so arrogant, "anyone who differs with our opinions are wrong, and we'll make you succumb to our way of thinking whether you want to or not", seems to be the credo of the global imperialists who you revere so much.
Well, I question that millions have been lifted out of poverty, for one thing it's hard to be very upwardly mobile when you're only making 1-2 dollars a day, or even 10. These countries do not very often have any safety nets, unless the UN or NGO's such as Doctors Without Borders, PLENTY,or other great but small scale organizations supply it.
What does the average resident of the Niger delta receive for the immense reserve of oil in his/her region? Polluted air and water. And your supply side assholes don't give a rat's ass. If they did, they wouldn't advocate industries leaving the US and developed nations to set up in places where they can pay about 1/50th of what a western worker would make. The middle class is not faring well, and the lower middle or working class is doing even worse. You guys must not be part of either, or you're just so partisan and/or ignorant that you can't see the truth in your face!
The deficit's risen uncontrolably under bush, this stimulus package will take it up more, and the idiot wants to drive up military and homeland security spending by what? I don't remember the percentage right now but it's ridiculous, and doesn't include the wars as part of the defense budget. Guess that's how you can say that they don't cost anything. Well, they're over a billion a week, and the asshole wants to take our hard earned medicare and social security benefits now, so I guess we really can't afford our aggression.
I have a little faith in the house and senate democrats to stop this plunder, but not a whole lot. They need to repeal the regressive tax cuts that are set to expire soon, as well as saving our medicare and SS.
One way to make the military budget a lot bigger is to do something no one ever mentions any more, cut waste! Thar would save billions, but "hurt" some of the biggest financial players, such as Lockheed-Martin and GE, so it would be a long bitter fight.
One more thing, batman, you've never mentioned the sub-prime fiasco to my knowledge. Don't you think this is a potentially devastating problem? Actually, it allready is.
I see you guys totally ignored my links and comments on Central America and Indinesia.
Understandable, it exposes some of your (and some who I had admired too, perhaps) as supporters of mass murder.
So here's one or two more scenarios that you can't defend.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
1118306#top
Note the date this was written. We've riddled Iraq with DU since we invaded. paul once told me that I made up the birth defects Iraqis are suffering from DU. Well, I don't make stuff up, not when it concern's world events, especially anything happening that's detremental to the health and well being of all life on earth. paul, this article, you may note, is from your favorite news source.
Now for something completely different, pentagon waste, and interference run for it by noble then-congressman randy "duke" cunningham,as well as some unsavory democrats
http://www.counterpunch.org/f22.html
Again, this isn't really recent, but we're still seeking billions into it, I just heard it yesterday on the radio, while we don't mind sending our soldiers out there with inadequate armor.
I'll look for more recent articles on both.
I'll try to link the BBC site again, if it doesn't work, or if it does, I'll put up a lot more on DU, some as I said will hopefully be from 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
1118306.stm
Batman, "I'm not trying to take personal credit for what my fellow countrymen and women are doing, (aside from voting for George Bush twice, and John McCain) but yes, Americans are trying ENORMOUSLY HARD to bring Iraq and Afghanistan into this century, to enjoy the freedoms and prosperity that we enjoy, and hopefully to plant a seed that will expand into the rest of the Muslim world, PRECISELY TO AVOID the kind of bloodbath you describe."
That is true, and you and your countrymen are wonderful people for doing that, and I totally acknowledge that. However, it is possible to do even more, and it doesn't cost you a cent. The same as if a lion approaches you. You can easily shoot it, and you have the right to do so. However, rather than take the (stupid but natural) lion's life, you could simply pretend that the lion is stronger than you, climb a tree, wait for the lion to find an alternate food supply, then come back down.
"And yes, that part about "love thy enemy" is one of those religious texts that is subject to interpretation. Tough love is what we are trying to do."
Sure. And you should do so. However, there's so much more you could do. Like replace the bit in the bible that says "stone your own children to death" with "slavery is really really wrong, so is nationalism" etc. And then do the same thing with the Quran.
buh, I don't respond to every link you post, and in fact, rarely read them. If I wanted to read links, I would read things like Little Green Footballs. If you want answers to your various links, I'll give you a stack of links (e.g. www.state.gov) which you can read for the next 1000 years which explain reality to you.
Because you mentioned the BBC, which doesn't blatantly lie as far as I can tell, I checked what you were prattling on about. The link on DU basically says that Saddam's dictatorship was making specious unverifiable claims, while the US democracy was saying that it's a load of crap.
Guess which side I believe?
You would be better off quoting a BBC report showing the statistics for birth defects in Iraq compared to other countries in the world. Ideally I'd like to compare to Syria, to try to get as close as possible to a controlled experiment (same drug use, same diet etc), but I don't trust figures from the Syrian dictatorship either.
I answer a lot of the stuff you actually post yourself. And you lose on every point. If you don't bother to try to get up from those defeats, I'm not going to spend my life answering posts from other left-wing idiots that you quoted. We've already got sensible people on the right who have answered them. Go and read their blogs instead of boasting about how you quoted some left-wing nut and I didn't answer it (because I supposedly couldn't). I've answered most of these things many times in my blog. Just go back and reread if you think I "can't".
Batman, "This is required viewing, in my opinion, for everyone, but especially for Buh."
I've now watched this. One thing very good that he said was that capitalism is the best system that has been shown to exist SO FAR. I'm not against future social experiments so long as they're done on hippy farms.
I also take his point about doing good with other people's money. However, it's not that cut and dried. Basically our countries are collectively owned. If you don't like that, you need to leave. If you want to participate, make sure you are aware of the tax laws.
You know - what they should do with the DU shells is put some gold plating somewhere on the shell. That way, when these DU shells, which have a tendency to cover every square inch of every country that is bombed, and every Iraqi lines up to eat the remnants of the DU shells, well we can say that we've brough unimaginable wealth to Iraq at the same time, because the entire country now has access to an infinite supply of gold so the problem of poverty has been solved for eternity, so no more whinging about that.
Batman, here is a good capitalism link:
http://ild.org.pe/en/mystery/english
paul, you prove your idiocy more with every word. You don't beat Foddy, Bruno, Janice (take her advice), me or anyone else who's argued with you here except maybe the gun lobby people, and it was surprising that you would disagree with them.
Janice, I doubt he's bipolar, I think that it's delusions, most likely of grandeur.
You want to tell us what your work experiences are, paul? What do you do now? I'm fortunate enough to work at a Ford UAW (United Auto Workers) assembly plant, as less in our country do almost every day. I've worked in manufacturing, direct supervision of disabled, landscaping, taxi driving, bus driving, garbage and delivery truck driving, and too many others to mention. I've worked at this auto plant for over 16&1/2 years.
I had to develop some people skills when I worked with the public. I've had to work in homes when someone had lost a husband, parent, etc., if only briefly. I'll bet you never developed any people skills, so you trey to make yourself believe that you're god because you want control but know that you can't get it.
Likewise, you almost certainly have never been in any area that was in any way like a war zone. Like dick cheney, you have no feel for the horrors of war, so you don't mind advocating mass bombings, I'm pretty sure you even mentioned nuking Pakistan. This shows extreme stupidity because the radiation would also destroy Afghanistan, who you claim to want to help, along with Iran, India, and, depending on how many and how big of nukes that you would use, maybe half the earth, with the other half ailing quite badly. Even our reckless leaders don't speak this foolishness.
nonadas may have bailed, I was going to anoint him your disciple and ask you to rename him, but I guess we may not get that far.
Seriously, we don't know anyone else here, so when someone stops commenting it could be for a reason that's serious, for lack of a better way of putting it. I joked about neil, really that was a little stupid, it's just that I became geared up, so to speak, for his viscious personal assaults, and then he suddenly stopped making them. nonadas, if you ever return, this is not a put down, but insensitive, insulting and nonsensical as your comments are, that guy was way past you. Nothing I admire, however, just letting you know you're a comparative amateur.
paul, you'll never convince me or anyone who disagrees with you that you're right with the stupid shit that you manufacture here. You ignore my statements on Indonesia and Central America because you can't defend the reagan/dictator axis or the US/suharto axis. I don't expect to change your opinions either, I write for noncommitted readers, if you have any.
buh
"I'll bet you never developed any people skills, so you trey to make yourself believe that you're god because you want control but know that you can't get it.
Likewise, you almost certainly have never been in any area that was in any way like a war zone. Like dick cheney, you have no feel for the horrors of war, so you don't mind advocating mass bombings."
I think you've hit the nail right on the head here. Paul has even admitted he is not good with people, and he most definitely has no experience of war. This is what makes him so free and easy with other people's lives.
Yeah, and he may have lost a disciple.
paul, here is a more recent article on the effects of depleted uranium, it includes some birth defect statistics from after the 2003 invasion, so I claerly did not make any of this up.
http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/iraq...o/iraq/
21_1.htm
buh, "paul, you prove your idiocy more with every word."
Only in your Orwellian world.
"You don't beat Foddy, Bruno, Janice (take her advice), me or anyone else who's argued with you"
In the real world, I do.
"You want to tell us what your work experiences are, paul?"
You want to see the relevance to a logic debate? Most of my work has been with computers. Pure logic.
"What do you do now?"
Computer programmer.
"I'll bet you never developed any people skills"
Most people are sociopaths. The Iraq war showed that.
"so you trey to make yourself believe that you're god because you want control but know that you can't get it."
Spare me your amateur psychology Buh, it is not your strong point. I was an atheist for 25 years. I only ditched atheism when I was presented with incontrovertible proof and had to radically change my worldview.
"Likewise, you almost certainly have never been in any area that was in any way like a war zone."
And you've likely never had to watch someone have his tongue cut out.
"Like dick cheney, you have no feel for the horrors of war, so you don't mind advocating mass bombings"
And like Foddy, you have no feel for the horrors of being raped by your own government, so don't mind if Saddam continued to order the rape of women. Especially when it's only brown women.
"I'm pretty sure you even mentioned nuking Pakistan. This shows extreme stupidity because the radiation would also destroy Afghanistan"
The hell it would. You're just showing your own extreme stupidity.
"paul, you'll never convince me or anyone who disagrees with you that you're right"
Because you're all close-minded and dogmatic.
"You ignore my statements on Indonesia and Central America because you can't defend the reagan/dictator axis or the US/suharto axis."
Wrong. I can. The same way I defend the US/USSR axis during WWII. It is strategic to deal with the scariest enemy first.
"paul, here is a more recent article on the effects of depleted uranium, it includes some birth defect statistics from after the 2003 invasion, so I claerly did not make any of this up."
First of all, the numbers are only 650. Why not 50% of all births given that the claim (made with absolutely no evidence) is that it's DU in the water supply? Secondly, this figure is only 20% more than under Saddam. A more likely explanation would be Saddam's regime not counting them correctly. So, we have:
1. No controlled experiment.
2. No reliable numbers.
3. Even the unreliable numbers are so small that there's no evidence of a problem.
4. No actual evidence of DU being the cause rather than say Saddam burning oil. Or sunflower seeds. Or a 20% increase in inbreeding (the other possibility they produce).
Yes, buh, in your "brain" I can see how you managed to mangle all that together to come up with a conclusion in direct contradiction to the US government. And that Bush is stealing oil.
buh, I bet you've never watched your relatives disappear into mass graves either, which is why you so readily support Saddam's mass graves.
And I bet you've never been a slave either, which is why you so readily support Saddam's state-slavery.
And I bet you've never been a brown person either, so that's why you so readily support absolutely pheomenal human rights abuses, so long as they only happen against brown people. Interestingly, you pretend to care about EMPLOYED brown people's wage (so long as they're employed in American companies), but I never see you care about brown people's human rights, or the rights of the unemployed.
Also, the actual conventional war killed very few people. ie the horror isn't war, the horror is from religious violence. And I have seen that, buh. I saw it on 9/11. And that's why I'm advocating anti-religious bigotry.
Also, apparently you've never seen the horror of car accidents, killing 40,000 Americans every year. That's presumably why you advocate allowing cars instead of banning them, right?
buh, "you want control but know that you can't get it"
I just realised - you're PROJECTING your own desire to control onto others. That's why you think Bush is trying to control oil, and I'm trying to control (something unspecified). No wonder you're so confused all the time! Not everyone's a control freak like you. Some of us actually believe it's noble to FIGHT control (subjugation). It is in our blood.
Actually I am also guilty of projection. I assumed that almost all people in the world wanted to fight against subjugation. It was only at the time of the Iraq war that I found out I had been projecting.
Just the same as I projected my own anti-racism onto others (and it didn't help that the left-wing media had been lying the entire time about how wonderful these Arab/Muslims/foreigners were - not a racist bone in their body etc etc - and I was stupid enough to believe them in the absence of being able to get poll results and verify those results by speaking to some of the individuals in those countries).
No wonder you think Bush/conservatives are such ogres. With your disgusting genes being projected onto them, no wonder they seem disgusting.
You really are soul-less. You cannot imagine the beauty of seeing Iraqis/Afghans/Eastern Europeans gaining their freedom from the likes of dogmatic subjugating racist sociopaths such as yoruself.
Well, more of the same.
First, I'm not prejudiced against any brown people, you're the one who doesn't mind sacrificing a million Indonesians, thousands of Timorese and also several thousand Central Americans. You don't think these governments gave thugs the green light to rape? I wonder why those four US nuns doing mission work in either Honduras or Guatemala, Honduras I'm pretty sure, with john negroponte the US ambassador, were raped and murdered and the terrorist scum death squad school of the americas trained "counter-revolutionaries" were never punished by their government. Why didn"t reagan step in? The US was directing everything in Central America.
You'll make your stupid "fighting communism" claim, as if that will justify reigning an apocolypse on every Indian village south of the Rio Grande, which is utter nonsense and just like we're doing in the middle east now, would actually drive people to communism.
How was East Timor a communist threat, especially after the soviet union fell? Why was it okay for saddam to have his charges rape Iraqi women then, if they raped on the scale you say, and no doubt if true they raped Iranian women too. As I've said many times, this was the time of saddam's greatest human rights abuses, it's widely noted, followed by the post-Gulf War I massacre after bush I told the shiites to rise up against the regime, then turned his back on them and allowed them to be slaughtered. Another time a larger than average number of rapes may well have occured. By then, sanctions were placed on Iraq, but they mainly caused suffering for the war ravaged population, with bombings by the US for alledged fly zone violations up until the next invasion, in 2003. But according to you, none of these events I've named caused as much suffering as the supposed government sanctioned rapes which may (were) have been embellished somewhat by our regime here in their frantic push for war. They lied about everything else, so how do you know this is iron clad? More rapes are being committed now, and the government you hold up as a success is powerless to stop it if not sometimes enabling some rapes. By that I mean that I heard a report that a Sunni woman accused a Shia military or government official of raping her. nouri al-maliki called her a liar. No charges were filed.
I've also heard that a woman who accuses a man of raping her in Pakistan must have four male witnesses to support her claim or she could be punished herself. Do you think saudi Arabia is better than that, or better, for that matter, than Iraq under the secular saddam?
I doubt that very much, but you don't speak out against the great ally in the war on terror (and producer of 15 or 16 of the alledged 9-11 hijackers.)
You're okay with the rape and subjugation of saudi and Pakistani women, so you are predjudiced against these brown women who live in a real, non-orwellian world, and their suffering doesn't concern you any more than th
that of the Native American or Timorese darker skinned women.
What a pompous ASShole (why do you always ay arse?) you are.
And make another post, just say anything since nothing you say makes any sense anyway. Put out a pitch for some more disciples.
Paul
I'm still waiting to hear if you have read "1984", since you clearly don't understand the meaning of Orwellian (which your last post - "You swap the definition of good and bad which is why I call you Orwellian." - makes only too clear).
Foddy, "I'm still waiting to hear if you have read "1984""
No Foddy, I haven't.
"since you clearly don't understand the meaning of Orwellian"
You clearly don't care about Iraqi women being raped by their own government. Frankly, I consider that to be a far worse sin than not having read a book.
buh,
Congratulations! You actually got one or two things right!!! The world will never be the same again.
"First, I'm not prejudiced against any brown people"
You are if you think they don't deserve the same freedom you have.
"you're the one who doesn't mind sacrificing a million Indonesians, thousands of Timorese and also several thousand Central Americans."
I don't mind sacrificing 20 million Russians in WWII to defeat the Nazis either. They're mostly white, by the way, since skin colour is central to your worldview. And I don't mind sacrificing 4000 Americans to free Iraq either. I don't mind if I'm sacrificed in that cause myself. What I do mind is seeing hundreds of thousands of people sacrificed for nothing more than to keep Saddam's dictatorship in place. THAT hurts. It's YOU that doesn't mind seeing brown-skinned people sacrificed for nothing at all. I want every death to count for something.
"You don't think these governments gave thugs the green light to rape?"
I don't know, Foddy. What I do know is that they are responsible for their own actions, and if we're going to invade sovereign states, we should concentrate on enemy governments above all else.
"I wonder why those four US nuns doing mission work in either Honduras or Guatemala, Honduras I'm pretty sure, with john negroponte the US ambassador, were raped and murdered and the terrorist scum death squad school of the americas trained "counter-revolutionaries" were never punished by their government."
You'll have to take it up with the respective dictator. Personally I'd start with the problem of North Korean gulags which are a problem right now (which you don't care about) rather than going back looking at past crimes committed during a war against communism. If you do want to drag up history, have a few choice words to say to Marx.
"Why didn't reagan step in?"
He did step in. He stopped the spread of communism, and in actual fact, defeated it, which I had thought was technically impossible. Well, it was technically impossible from outside. I never figured out a way of getting NATO forces into Eastern Europe.
"The US was directing everything in Central America."
Sure, buh. There's no such thing as independent actors.
"You'll make your stupid "fighting communism" claim"
Fighting communism, and dogma in general, is not a stupid claim. It's perfectly sensible.
"as if that will justify reigning an apocolypse on every Indian village south of the Rio Grande"
The communists justified killing as many as it took, and that was a hell of a lot, so that their dogma would reign supreme. This is the ultimate truth about war. You must be willing to play at the same level as your enemy if you want your ideology to survive. This is the lesson the Prophet Mohammed taught us, and one reason why I'm a Muslim.
"which is utter nonsense and just like we're doing in the middle east now, would actually drive
people to communism."
Your theory was bunk, buh. We won. We stopped the Soviet expansion and then we rolled it back.
"How was East Timor a communist threat"
All countries were in danger of turning red. Even China. Oops.
"especially after the soviet union fell?"
Guess what, buh? After the Soviet Union fell, no-one gives a rat's arse if the East Timorese want to vote communists into power. We'll just laugh at yet another absurd social experiment happening live as a deterrent to voting for the left in Australia etc.
"Why was it okay for saddam to have his charges rape Iraqi women then, if they raped on the scale you say, and no doubt if true they raped Iranian women too."
It was never ok, buh. However, it was also not ok for us to do more than mutter a bit because it was not the time to open a warfront with him. Just the same as we said pretty words about Stalin during WWII.
"As I've said many times, this was the time of saddam's greatest human rights abuses, it's widely noted"
Sure buh. But the Free World faced an existential threat. Unfortunately we've always faced such existential threats, ever since the Iceland created the free world (in a sea of dictatorship) a little over 1000 years ago.
"followed by the post-Gulf War I massacre after bush I told the shiites to rise up against the regime, then turned his back on them and allowed them to be slaughtered."
And finally you got something right, buh. Yes, America is guilty as charged there. And you know what's ultimately responsible for that? Your friggin mythical American "revolution". Bush snr had read the same fairy tales as the rest of America about how simple it is to start a glorious revolution if you want freedom. And those poor men went up against a friggin modern military and got slaughtered. I wouldn't have minded if 100,000 Iraqis had died and got freedom at the end of it. Instead, they got friggin nothing. Just like the hundreds of thousands in Saddam's mass graves.
"Another time a larger than average number of rapes may well have occured."
Sure. Government rape and murder etc.
"By then, sanctions were placed on Iraq, but they mainly caused suffering for the war ravaged population"
Absolutely. Listen buh, if Australia ever has a cruel dictatorship, please don't let your stupid government put sanctions on me. I'm not interested. Just bomb the crap out of my government and we'll do the rest. I'm not interested in you making me suffer for 12 years because I'm Rudd's slave.
"with bombings by the US for alledged fly zone violations up until the next invasion, in 2003."
Yes, and don't pull that crap on me either. There's no point killing Rudd's conscripts either. I may actually be one of them myself. Make a beeline to Rudd and kill him. If any of my fellow conscript soldiers aim a gun at any of you American liberators, I'll kill the arseholes myself and apologize to you that we have such arseholes in our c