Re: Personal thoughts and opinions on current even

[Killraven]

Quite true.

It is arguable that Bush Jr. has orchestrated and overseen possibly the most aggressive (it's just a word I've used.. you'll probably call it 'positive action') foreign policies of any Republican government in modern times.

I think Earthrise was trying to determine your degree of 'right winged-ness' - ie if you agree with Bush Jr.'s foreign policies now, then you must have been critical of Reagan and Bush Sr's policies when they were in office...

[Earthrise]

Were the American irregulars fighting British imperialism freedom fighters? What about the Russian and Yugoslav "terrorists" behind the Nazi lines?

Was Robin Hood right?

Earthrise

[Charles]

Here we go again...the old 'we're no different' moral relativism schtick. The American continental army and militias WERE NOT beheading civilians or intentionally killing their own to create terror, chaos and civil war. They fought to establish a rule of law which was then finding a voice through people like Thomas Jefferson, until recently someone you seemed to admire. Russian and Yugoslav terrorists? Yep, they sought to replace National Socialist tyrrany with Communist tyrrany; that's why the Germans created the Anti-Partisan badge (Bandenkampfabzeichen, 1944-1945) in gold, silver and bronze grades (depending on how many partisan terrorists you killed, etc.) to award to Wehrmacht and SS troops.

Jazzy Jeff - while I'm thinking of it, you brought up an interesting point I forgot to address last time. I know it seems Bush #43 has created a most ambitious and aggressive foreign policy in recent history, but I remember the very same things said about Reagan when he decided it was time to tackle the Soviet Union...the Left was practically hysterical at his audacity and candor; they knew he meant what he said. For the Left back then, appeasement was the order of the day and confrontation was to be feared.

[Killraven]

'Tackle the Soviet Union'... ;D

..no doubt you'll correct me but the media coverage at the time seemed to suggest that Gorbachev was doing all the running in starting to both dismantle the USSR and the Cold War gridlock (such that it was - I doubt the deprived Soviets were in any condition to start a war on anybody by the mid-80's even if they'd wanted to). Reagan was viewed merely as a toothless (and not so clever) puppet controlled from behind the scenes.

It may have all been public perception, but perception is full of half truths - take satire like "Spitting Image" as an example.

[Earthrise]

Hear, hear, JJ.

Charles, you can't have it both ways. The Minutemen and other Continental militias certainly used guerilla tactics, including destroying the livestock and farmsteads of "loyalists" who supported Britain. The use of guerilla tactics by insurgents against an stronger imperial foe is as old as civilisation. The difference to me is the justice of their cause. Either your country was founded by terrorists or the Palestinians are freedom fighters. You can't have it both ways.

What about the women and children your bombs decapitate; just because Americans push buttons from 5000 metres instead of getting their hands bloody doesn't absolve them from their guilt. State terrorism is much worse than irregular terrorism, as States have a much greater capacity to murder and oppress.

And I hope you are not condemning people subject to Nazi occupation for resisting, regardless of what political system eventuated. Are you saying they should have accepted Nazi rule to "save" themselves from communism? That's classic Goebbels, you are more right wing than I thought.

Just like how I should accept American rule to "save" myself from freedom and democracy.

Earthrise, freedom fighter.

[Charles]

"We will carry on our jihad against the Western infidel and the Arab apostate until Islamic rule is back on earth." - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

[Earthrise]

"We will carry on our jihad against the Western infidel and the Arab apostate until Islamic rule is back on earth." - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

I have been waiting to see if Charles was going to expand on this ridiculous quote, but alas. Of course, Islam has never ruled the world. Islamic rule already exists in a handful of countries; Iran, ex-Taliban and possibly Malaysia and Indonesia. The Arab puppet governments that bow to the West are an affront to Freedom and Democracy and should be torn down as soon as possible by their citizens. And Western Crusaders are just targets, whether they are occupying Palestine or Iraq. International law protects the rights of occupied people to resist military occupation with force. No wonder America want to tear down the UN, it stands in their way to world hegemony.

If any of you have read "1984", you would remember the character Goldstein. He is the supposed leader of the resistance to Big Brother and is blamed for any insurgency, mistakes by BB and is the regime’s agent of wedge politics. What is illuminating about Goldstein is all forms of democracy, freedom and human rights are attributed to him, tied to terrorism and thus a danger to society. So anyone believing in democracy, freedom and human rights is automatically an agent of Goldstein and vilified by the regime and subsequently "disappears".

Orwell got this idea from Stalin, who painted his social democratic rival Trotsky in the same vain. That way all resistance can be attributed to one man, instead of representing a wider resistance to the Regime. Hitler used the Jews in the same way, blaming them for all resistance and showing German society what would happen to them if they indulged in the "Jewish" pursuits of democracy and socialism.

My point is Osama Bin Laden and now al-Zarqawi are being used exactly the same way. America in particular needs a man in a black hat to target, a name for their pain. They cannot accept that a greater and greater percentage of the world's people now oppose them and they need to link all resistance to one man to limit the damage this does to domestic opinion in the USA. Also as a flimsy pretext to destroy the civil liberties of US citizens and human rights around the world.

Really people, when is enough, enough?

Earthrise

[Charles]

Waiting for me to expand on the quote? How? It tells us everything we need to know about your so-called "freedom fighters."

They make plain their goals, clearly mark their targets, and promise to carry on until their ends are achieved.

I don't need to say anything more about it. There it is, black and white.

Defend and lionize them all you like. Knock yourself out.

[Bayne]

[glow=red,2,300]Oh yes, they are all the same these Islamicists aren't they...
Really now that is offensive! Both Intellectually and Morally! By tarring them all with the same brush you help polarize their position, helping reduce the power of Islamic moderates to influence the rabid fanatics.

So a powerful Islamic figure wants world domination for his religion. What's new? I hear the same thing from Christians and others on a regular basis! How about the Prominent Rabbi who called for the Nuclear Anihilation of Europe?

How about the Apocalyptic Christians meeting with President Bush and his staff alegedly advising on Middle East policy?

A big part of this debate is secular V's religious influences on government. While a perfectly apt topic for discussion here I caution everyone to maintian respect for other peoples religious beliefs.

On the religious topic, earlier Charles in relation to Christian Missionaries you suggested not answering the door or just walking away. My word man if only twere so simple! Sure I can do so (actually I often invite them in for a lively and friendly debate) but it's not so easy for most people to be so principled. Missionaries often come hand in hand with services unavailable anywhere else, whether it's the Salvation Army using bowls of soup as the bait for their religious hook (despite their genuinely benevolent motives) or charities providing clean drinking water and education that have churches and preachers as part of the package. Most people given a choice between cholera and a church will go for the church and while they might convince themselves that they can maintain their own religion, language etc in the face of this, generations of cultural destruction proves otherwise. It's all well and good to rationalise things with the notion of free choice, free will, and in an ideal world that's the way it is. Certainly it's the way it should be, but it's not. People are influnced by television commercials, missionaries destroy indiginous cultures. No matter what reductionist notions you try to apply to make this a black and white issue, the grey smudges remain.

As for trying to do something to fix the current situation, ever more paranoid defence and offense only works to a limited extent, as the current situation in Isreal shows. What else is needed? Countering the fury of dissafected youth by Memetics?

[/glow]

[Happy Chappy]

I have just spent practically all my lunchbreak reading this thread, and while there are some valid points made on all sides (I particlarly liked Dark Elastic's "Nothing serious coming from me . I'm in these conversations for the fun of it . " quote!! ), it appears as if the conversation, nay, debate, actually argument is going round in circles.

I am in Elastic's camp on this one - I look at things from a light-hearted point of view, and to be honest, wonder why you can't just agree to disagree. I get the distinct impression that this could get ugly (or uglier!!)

For the record, I really don't know what to think about American policies, I don't feel I know enough about all of them to comment properly, but I do know that the actual premise (spelt right???) for the last gulf war was wrong - even Blair has admitted today that they will probably never find any WMDs in Iraq. The end result, however (Saddam being deposed) can only be seen as a good thing. What they need to do now, is perhaps withdraw from Iraq (notice I said "perhaps" - this is just my opinion), or at the very least, stop sending more troops in as this seems to antagonise the "insurgents" (again, is that spelt right?).

Bottom line: Whatever our respective Governments decide to do, it will meet with both praise and criticism, all we can do is hope that peace can be found.

There, I have said my piece, and I now await the backlash!!

[Charles]

My words are "offensive." That's rich. I never suggested all Islamists went along with the sentiment in the quote. The argument was about terrorists, not a blanket statement. "Freedom fighters" in Eathrise-speak, freedom fighters like Timothy McVeigh.

Its amazing to me you find my words, accepting the possibility that 'they' may mean what they say, "offensive." His provocative words were not offensive, no. Mine were. Not a word of condemnation for zealots al-Zarqawi, only me.

But of course if the zealots are Christians, well that's different!

So be it.

[Killraven]

Well said Happy Chappy, but me thinks your post may have been glossed over...

[Happy Chappy]

I noticed that too Jazzy, me old mucka...

I think everyone should just chill out a bit, take a step back and basically loosen up. Agree? ;D

[Bayne]

[glow=red,2,300]Charles,
All zeolotry is offensive. Of course I am offended by some of the statements of Islamic Fundamentalists who call for forcing their belief system on everyone else. I was pointing out that such sickening comments are far from unique to Islam. Terrorism is offensive, any deliberate attack on civilians is abhorant in the most extreme degree. Still, it's not good enough to use a big rubber stamp that says 'EVIL' and assume that all the terrorists are the same. Becuase it's impossible to find all the terrorists in advance and blow them up, you have to find out why people become terrorists and prevent the formation of terrorists.

Of course if you extend the notion of harming civilians a little further then many developed Nation States are guilty of ecological terrorism on a grand scale, and don't kid yourself Charles, while some loony people might want the United States of America to become a third world country, the vast, VAST majority of environmentalists only want a gradual move towards the sustainable use of resources. Something that the Bush administration is clearly opposed to as they diverted funding from projects to cheaply remove hydrogen from seawater and gave it to oil companies to research expensive ways of removing it from oil.
Now I hear that there is talk in the US of developing New Nuclear Weapons and new justifications for their use.

So which is more evil, the man who blows himself up and everyone in the bus with him or the one who knowingly raises the cancer rates of a generation?

While I'm at it, there is a dark dark side to the export of democracy that can be seen in countries like Russia and Mongolia. While the citizens of those countries now have political freedom, they also have soaring rates of poverty, drug use, crime and suicide. If developed democratic nations are going to insist on forcing democracy on other nations what can we do to ensure that such disastrous results are not repeated?

[/glow]

[Charles]

I wasn't aware that democracy was forced on Russia and Mongolia.

In a perfect world the transition from totalitarianism to democracy (or more precisely "representative republicanism") would be seamless and smooth, with no suffering or teething pains.

Oh, for a perfect world.

Maybe we should just turn them back over to the Communists so they don't have to think or act for themselves anymore. What a hassle thinking is!

[Earthrise]

Happy Chappy,
I appreciate all efforts to moderate this debate. What you are seeing though is not personal animosity but the reality of politics in our contemporary world. Many people in our "liberal democracies" have been lulled into passive citizenship and given up their right to influence the political process. That is why dictators and religious demagogues now speak out without moderation. If only you and the millions like you would speak up and tell our politicians that they are acting like uncivilised beasts, democracy would really work. So rather than shoot the messengers, shoot (verbally) our ridiculous and self-serving politicians. Citizens, take back your rights!!!

""Freedom fighters" in Eathrise-speak, freedom fighters like Timothy McVeigh."

Charles, you are a practiced double-speaker and doctor of spin. Timothy McVeigh is a uncommon criminal, like all true terrorists. Iraqis and Palestinians defending themselves from American terrorism are not criminals, but people exercising their moral and inalienable right to self-defence. Your pitiful attempt to smear me and other people defending human rights is beyond contempt and in-line with your political masters. Your lack of objectivity is illuminating and destroys any validity in your arguments. Your inability to show the tiniest amount of criticism towards your widely-condemned government and its policies tells me you are hiding behind ideology to defend your compliance in atrocities. You are not silently submitting but actively defending the worst government since the Nazis. How will you explain it to your grandchildren?

Bayne,
Memetics, bravo! I really can't believe we are still excusing war and conquest with religion in the 21st century. Christ was a peaceful freedom-fighter whose philosophy was two thousand years before its time. It infuriates me that Roman power-mongers stole this beautiful philosophy and twisted it to retain their rule. First Ghandi and now the world-wide peace movement; some days the "Kingdom of God" (peace on Earth) feels like it is just over the horizon, which explains the violent thrashings of the warmongers whose time is almost up. And Islam was developed as an answer to Catholic religious power-politics. Islam removes any Priesthood from being the only interpretation of God's word, instead placing authority in the Book. What is illuminating is that both of these peaceful, world-shaping movements have been subverted by evil men and bent to their will. I don't know the answer Bayne, it seems that every good move creates an evil response. All I know is that the majority of humanity doesn't want to live in fear and poverty, and evil people are but a corrupt minority attracted to the centres of power. It seems to me direct democracy, power spread out to every human adult, could free us all.

Destroy the ring of power! But where is Frodo?

Earthrise

[Charles]

This is the last time I'll say it because obviously you're not really listening to me; I am FAR more critical of this government than you'll ever know (you've formed this ultra-negative judgement of me based on my support of one aspect of "this government" - I think you mean administration, though. Bush's administration is just 1/3 of "this government," but I digress...), and probably be willing to admit lest your opinion of me actually rise. But where removing Saddam Hussein, someone we screwed up and helped put there decades ago, it was the right thing to do. Oops, was that an admission we screwed up something??...Oh my! ;D

[Happy Chappy]

Earthrise said:

Happy Chappy,
I appreciate all efforts to moderate this debate. What you are seeing though is not personal animosity but the reality of politics in our contemporary world. Many people in our "liberal democracies" have been lulled into passive citizenship and given up their right to influence the political process. That is why dictators and religious demagogues now speak out without moderation. If only you and the millions like you would speak up and tell our politicians that they are acting like uncivilised beasts, democracy would really work. So rather than shoot the messengers, shoot (verbally) our ridiculous and self-serving politicians. Citizens, take back your rights!!!

Earthrise, I don't feel that I have been lulled into this "passive citizenship" as you call it... I go through this life trying to make the best of my lot, not because of me being in a comfortable rut (or being a passive citizen), but because I have a wife and child to think of, and through one thing or another (90% being NOT linked to Government actions), we have been dealt a crappy hand in life. It may sound selfish, but even though I watch/read the news and sympathise with those less fortunate than myself, I want to make sure that my family is provided for before anyone else (charity begins at home, after all...). It has got to the stage where I am no longer donating old videos etc to charity shops, but selling them on E-Bay or at car boot sales. Yes, I give to charity, but I can't afford to give to all charities - I give to those I have needed in the past (Cancer Recearch & SCOPE)...(I've wandered off the subject here...)

I haven't given up any rights with regards to politcs/voting etc (I have only failed to vote on one occasion - and that was coz I forgot to get my postal/proxy vote in on time as I was at uni and not at home), I just realise that each party has at least one thing I agree with, and several things I don't. When casting my votes, I look at those things that directly effect me. (To be continued - lunch break!!)

[Killraven]

Hey Earthrise...everyone else gets a summary - where's mine?

Starting to feel left out now

[Happy Chappy]

Can't be bothered to continue my rant...

If anyone has any thoughts or questions, then let me know!! ;D