PDA

View Full Version : At least we are doing the right thing


Southpaw2012
06-15-2014, 02:34 PM
At least our king Barack Obama is doing the correct thing by releasing these not so bad guys from Guantanamo Bay. They've gone on to form the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/06/15/‘you-need-be-afraid’-judge-jeanine-says-militants-iraq-will-march-toward-west

ShadowbaneX
06-15-2014, 03:23 PM
If I wanted to hear from Fox News I'd first have to get a lobotomy.

Zombie Sammael
06-15-2014, 07:30 PM
I tried reading that, but about four lines in my brain started dribbling out of my ears.

I have to wonder, Southpaw, why you bother continuing to post here. It's obvious that you're not getting any kind of positive reaction. Are you just trolling? Throwing around terms like "King Barack Obama" seems to suggest so but I'd like to be able to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Isabel
06-15-2014, 07:34 PM
So what should obama do differently in iraq? I quickly scanned the article, but it doesnt seem to suggest an alternative approach.

Terez
06-15-2014, 07:41 PM
Obviously Obama should have gone back in time and prevented us from invading Iraq in the first place.

ShadowbaneX
06-15-2014, 08:50 PM
Obviously Obama should have gone back in time and prevented us from invading Iraq in the first place.
More like he should have been white, named Bob O'Brian, and Republican. Oh, and cut taxes, cut benefits for the poor and the sick, and let rich people and corporations make more money at the expense of everyone and everything else.

Nazbaque
06-16-2014, 12:48 AM
This person does not understand the relationship between fear and courage. Obviously she doesn't read much as the whole "in order to be brave you must have fear to defeat" has been done in so many novels.

Mainly this shit is just so so shallow. And that part of the USA media is what has lost their country the little respect it had. It's not the so called political blunders but how they are being reported that make them look so bad. Always just looking at the surface and going with the emotions that are brought up with no actual thinking.

GonzoTheGreat
06-16-2014, 02:38 AM
So what should obama do differently in iraq? I quickly scanned the article, but it doesnt seem to suggest an alternative approach.
Obama should have asked Congress to formally declare war upon Iraq when he could not reach agreement with Maliki about letting the US forces stay there peacefully. Yes, that would have meant starting yet another war of aggression. Yes, it also would have meant that all parties in Iraq would be doing their best to kill Americans, instead of (as used to be the case) only about half of them.

So what?
Don't you think that getting that oil is worth a couple of tens of thousands more dead Americans?
Conquering Iraq actually makes more sense, from an economic point of view (which is all right wingers care about) than the earlier (failed) attempt to conquer Vietnam did.

Obviously Obama should have gone back in time and prevented us from invading Iraq in the first place.
From what I know of it, he did exactly that. He even openly warned against the war before it had actually gotten started, only to be ignored by the Republican war mongers.

Davian93
06-16-2014, 09:07 AM
~debates the appropriate response...~


GO FUCK YOURSELF!

Isabel
06-16-2014, 01:54 PM
hmm, people that's not really nice.
I understand that the viewpoints are far away from each other, but it would be nice to try to gain some understanding why people think that way.

And not see each other as enemies......

I would suggest that from both sides. Although i noticed that it's sometimes easier in real life.

Southpaw2012 was nice to me the times i met him at Jordan Con.

Terez
06-16-2014, 03:58 PM
He's nice to everyone. Won't stop me from telling him what I think about the (far-from-nice) garbage he posts here. :p I'm from MS; I was raised to understand how he thinks. It doesn't take effort on my part. Can't speak for anyone else. It goes like this: 1) don't think too much, 2) watch Fox or some alternative, 3) get angry, 4) never listen to alternative points of view because cognitive dissonance causes indigestion.

GonzoTheGreat
06-17-2014, 03:26 AM
hmm, people that's not really nice.
I know that it is not nice. But it has been years now that American conservatives are blaming Obama for keeping to the schedule for withdrawal that Bush set. And in all those years they never ever have made any attempt to come up with a suggestion of what other option that would have been preferable was available to Obama.

They say he was wrong to order the withdrawal.
But they very consistently ignore the fact that he had no better option. Either they know that, in which case they are being deliberately dishonest, or they have no clue at all what they are talking about, in which case they should first get some relevant information before sending soldiers to their death.

Nazbaque
06-17-2014, 03:57 AM
The information doesn't really matter. They are sending soldiers to their death for the sake of sending soldiers to their death. Operation: Human Shield, but instead of being specifically the darker brown skinned it's the poorer "expendable" classes in general. Lust is a common sin among humans, but there is also Pride. For the power hungry war and politics is like sex. The whole Iraq business is at this point pretty much masturbation metaphorically speaking... Or it could be rape... Or necrophilia.

Terez
06-17-2014, 05:43 AM
The information doesn't really matter. They are sending soldiers to their death for the sake of sending soldiers to their death.
At this point, it's more like they are sending soldiers to their deaths because they believe that not doing so dishonors the soldiers who already died. They have deluded themselves into believing that if we didn't leave Iraq, that one day we would have 'won' the war and those deaths would have meant something. It's a sad thing to watch when it involves people who know someone who died, because they desperately want to believe that it wasn't for worse than nothing. But it was, and we can't change that by sending more people to their deaths. All we can do is make it worse. It's very bitter to hear that ISIS/L is winning the hearts and minds of many of the people they have conquered by managing to keep the peace and keep the lights on. For all the questions about whether we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, if we had managed to do as much in the months following Mission Accomplished, we might have actually made a difference in Iraq. But instead we danced around our promises of freedom and democracy, eventually replacing the (fairly secular) Sunni dictator with a Shiite government that had no interest in working with the Sunnis who were the only Iraqis with any experience doing actual governing. We oversaw the decimation of Iraqi infrastructure and we spent billions doing it. We arrested and killed thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. In other words, we blew our chance to accomplish this particular mission, and within a couple of years after Saddam was ousted, there was no turning back. And now we have no choice but to watch it all burn, or join hands with Iran* and Syria in propping up the Shia regime.

Thanks Obama.

*edited. Apparently I'm having trouble distinguishing between Iraq and Iran lately.

ShadowbaneX
06-17-2014, 06:27 AM
They couldn't do that Gonzo as that would actually make it look like there were actually working with him. As it is they blame him for leaving as per Bush's schedule (apparently).

If he didn't leave they would have blamed him for not leaving according to Bush's schedule. If he'd done something else they would have claimed how what he was doing was also wrong for reasons.

Right now the plan of the Republicans seems to be:
1. "Thanks Obama."
2. ????
3. Get back in to power (aka Profit).

If they actually made a reasonable suggestion as to an alternative there's a chance that Obama might actually take the option and then they'd be unable to sit back and criticize.

They only option they have now is to do nothing and let things disintegrate around them.

GonzoTheGreat
06-17-2014, 07:08 AM
If they actually made a reasonable suggestion as to an alternative there's a chance that Obama might actually take the option and then they'd be unable to sit back and criticize.
Most of your post makes sense, but here I have to ask for some further clarification.
Obama took Romneycare and planned to roll it out in the whole USA. Despite this being a Republican idea, the Republicans still criticized him for it, then gutted the law claiming that they would be willing to support it with some "small" changes, generally refused to vote in favor of their law when it came to the actual vote, and went on to carp about how all the changes they'd proposed made things so bad that Obamacare should be scrapped entirely before it even went into effect.

So I just plain see no reason for your belief that if the Republicans were to have a reasonable idea and Obama then tried to implement it, they couldn't fault him for the results. Can you please expand on that a bit?

ShadowbaneX
06-17-2014, 05:35 PM
Can you please expand on that a bit?

No?

GonzoTheGreat
06-18-2014, 03:36 AM
No?
Fair enough.

Nazbaque
06-18-2014, 03:41 AM
So I just plain see no reason for your belief that if the Republicans were to have a reasonable idea and Obama then tried to implement it, they couldn't fault him for the results. Can you please expand on that a bit?
No?
Fair enough.
Well that was anticlimactic.

GonzoTheGreat
06-18-2014, 03:55 AM
Well that was anticlimactic.
If you want to, you can blame Obama for it. Or, if your inclinations run that way, GWB, I guess.

Nazbaque
06-18-2014, 04:18 AM
If you want to, you can blame Obama for it. Or, if your inclinations run that way, GWB, I guess.

No I'll blame you Gonzo. You see as far as US politics goes I don't really see the democrats being that much better than the republicans. So I don't have this obsession of blaming one of them for everything. So when you don't have the balls to act like a spoiled brat and jump up and down wearing a propeller hat demanding SBX to ellaborate on those claims for the sake of my enterainment, I blame you for it.

GonzoTheGreat
06-18-2014, 04:52 AM
You could of course ask him yourself. If you dared to.

Nazbaque
06-18-2014, 05:48 AM
That wasn't the point. I wanted to follow the subdebate not take part in it. And of course I wanted to see you jump up and down wearing a propeller hat.

Terez
06-18-2014, 05:50 AM
No I'll blame you Gonzo. You see as far as US politics goes I don't really see the democrats being that much better than the republicans.
It is a tempting point of view, because the Democrats are generally not great, but ultimately fallacious. The difference can be stunningly huge.

More examples to go with Gonzo's Obamacare:

Republicans: We should go to war with Syria!
Obama: I'll consider it.
Republicans: OBAMA IS A WAR-MONGER!!!!

Republicans: Obama is a terrible president for not bringing Bowe Bergdahl home.
John McCain: I think trading these 5 guys whose names have been known for months now is probably a good idea.
Obama: Okay, done.
Republicans: TRAITOR!
McCain: IMPEACH!

Republicans: Obama is a dictator!
Obama: ...
Republicans: Obama should take lessons on how to be a leader from Vladimir Putin!
Obama: ...

Davian93
06-18-2014, 07:31 AM
I can think of one simple explanation for such behavior...

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f75/basilsblog/blazing-saddles-no-golblamit.jpg

fdsaf3
06-18-2014, 08:39 AM
This discussion verifies for me that once politics enters any policy discussion, it's effectively over.

The American political system is broken, and I, for one, couldn't be more apathetic about it.

Davian93
06-18-2014, 08:43 AM
This discussion verifies for me that once politics enters any policy discussion, it's effectively over.

The American political system is broken, and I, for one, couldn't be more apathetic about it.

Yes, yes it is.

We're entering the late Roman Republic stage of democracy as a country now.

GonzoTheGreat
06-18-2014, 09:35 AM
We're entering the late Roman Republic stage of democracy as a country now.
I'm reading Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and I can say that no matter what your Republicans say about Clinton (and JFK, for that matter), your presidents just plain do not have enough concubines to compete with the Romans. So if you ever want to make it into the history books as more than just a footnote, then you have a lot of catching up to do.

Nazbaque
06-18-2014, 11:05 AM
I'm reading Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and I can say that no matter what your Republicans say about Clinton (and JFK, for that matter), your presidents just plain do not have enough concubines to compete with the Romans. So if you ever want to make it into the history books as more than just a footnote, then you have a lot of catching up to do.

Wouldn't their president have to rape a ruling queen as well? Or would a general be enough?

GonzoTheGreat
06-18-2014, 11:45 AM
Wouldn't their president have to rape a ruling queen as well? Or would a general be enough?
If the general is good enough, there won't be a difference. If he's not quite that good, then who cares what he does?

Nazbaque
06-18-2014, 12:06 PM
If the general is good enough, there won't be a difference. If he's not quite that good, then who cares what he does?

:confused::confused: ... Huh?

GonzoTheGreat
06-18-2014, 12:20 PM
In Rome, quite a few accomplished generals became emperor (president, in US terms; so far Ike and George I are exceptions rather than the rule). A number of others found out the hard way that they weren't good enough.

Nazbaque
06-18-2014, 12:28 PM
Ah, right. Thanks for clarifying. I got a bit lost there for a moment.

So even if a quuen gets raped it doesn't matter unless it's an accomplished general who becomes the president?

Terez
06-18-2014, 07:22 PM
This discussion verifies for me that once politics enters any policy discussion, it's effectively over.

The American political system is broken, and I, for one, couldn't be more apathetic about it.
I have already been through a pretty long apathetic stage and I found it a dangerous place to be. We have had some fairly apolitical discussions at Theoryland (i.e. politicians rarely or never mentioned in the thread) but this thread was political farce from the OP, which is why the discussion, such as it is, mostly follows suit. It is what it is.

eht slat meit
06-18-2014, 08:53 PM
The downside of caring instead of apathy is having to live with the frustration that unless you manage to somehow manifest the power of the Dragon Reborn himself, any change for the better has exactly the shelf life of however long it takes for that "change" to conflict with the corporate backers of the Democratic and Republican parties.

Uno
06-18-2014, 09:44 PM
I manage to maintain a kind of detached political apathy in part by the simple means of living abroad. Since I haven't lived in Norway for almost 14 years, that country's political issues now feel rather remote to me, and since I'm not a US citizen, I can manage to sustain the fiction that US politics don't concern me. When that doesn't work, I seek refuge in my own idiosyncratic brand of semi-reactionary philosophical anarchism, coupled with the escapism that comes natural to a professional historian. That is, I'm generally more concerned with the problems of the past than I am with those of the present. A very self-indulgent and completely unconstructive way of dealing with politics, I admit, but it does save me some frustration.

Davian93
06-18-2014, 10:25 PM
The downside of caring instead of apathy is having to live with the frustration that unless you manage to somehow manifest the power of the Dragon Reborn himself, any change for the better has exactly the shelf life of however long it takes for that "change" to conflict with the corporate backers of the Democratic and Republican parties.

There really is no way to fix our current system within the rules of the system itself. That's why I'm not all that optimistic on the long-term viability of our current model. Even just the last 30-40 years have seen a marked decrease in that viability. I tend to think that historians in another 100 years will point to Nixon as the beginning of the end of Pax Americana and our dominance as a world power as our country's political system turned toxic. The push to extremism we're currently seeing is just another part of it really.

ShadowbaneX
06-18-2014, 11:04 PM
I'll admit, I'm a little unhappy with the results as well. Being reasonable in a political discussion is really unacceptable.

Also, could someone explain what the hell Gonzo wanted. I for one couldn't follow that from beginning to end. He said he wanted to ask a question then just started talking, and by the time I reached the end by brain had shut down and my eyes glazed over.

...I suppose he should get some points though...that rambling was very politician-like.

Nazbaque
06-19-2014, 02:00 AM
Well I guess the gist was that you said that Republicans wouldn't be able to complain if they offered a reasonable solution to Obama and he fully adopted it, then they couldn't complain about any negative results. Gonzo is of the opinion that based on past behaviour they could and would complain anyway mainly because they have no problem being hypocrites. Being a political cynic I have to say that I agree with him.

GonzoTheGreat
06-19-2014, 04:07 AM
Basically, I asked you to prove that Republicans are doing politics in good faith. Since they aren't, you can't provide proof of it, and I think that you know this.

You raised the possibility that if Obama did as the Republicans wanted, then the Republicans would not complain about what Obama did. I think that there is plenty of evidence to show that the Republicans will complain, no matter what Obama does, not because of the things he does or doesn't do, but because he is not one of them and thus not someone they would ever approve of in any way.
The Republicans care more about their party (and their business interests) than they care about their country. As long as that is the case, we shouldn't expect them to act in good faith.

ShadowbaneX
06-19-2014, 07:12 PM
I'm pretty sire that's not what I said. I'm pretty sure what I said was that the Republicans are playing chicken with politics because they've got nothing left to do but hope that the Democrats blink.

I said that the Republicans aren't offering up any suggestions because if they did and the Democrats actually acted on the suggestion they would gain nothing from it. Well, a potential improvement for the lives of many Americans, but really helps the part in charge, not the ones that made the suggestion.

I don't know where you got your interpretation from...other than I might have typed that up and made a typo or two that skewed the entire interpretation of the thing.

eht slat meit
06-19-2014, 09:08 PM
Basically, I asked you to prove that Republicans are doing politics in good faith. Since they aren't, you can't provide proof of it, and I think that you know this.

When was this fantastic device invented that can determine ANYONE'S sincerity of intent, much less that of a politician? That's almost laughable, except that the sad truth is that you're accurate in a sense... politicians as a rule and not an exception, Republican or Democrat, don't act in good faith. They act in their interests, which is definitely not the same thing.

GonzoTheGreat
06-20-2014, 03:21 AM
I said that the Republicans aren't offering up any suggestions because if they did and the Democrats actually acted on the suggestion they would gain nothing from it. Well, a potential improvement for the lives of many Americans, but really helps the part in charge, not the ones that made the suggestion.
But that is at least in part because the opposition party (especially the current one) would rather obstruct than take credit for good ideas.

eht slat meit
06-20-2014, 06:09 AM
But that is at least in part because the opposition party (especially the current one) would rather obstruct than take credit for good ideas.

You're under the mistaken impression that they'll ever be allowed to take credit for those good ideas. That's not how politics work. When something goes wrong, it's Bush's fault, and when something goes right, Obama gets the credit.

They both pull this crep, and it's why real progress has come to a complete stop and we are left with a system where the real change is measured in how well the bipartisan leadership can upsell the piles of manure they've successfully sold us so far.

Nazbaque
06-20-2014, 06:19 AM
And yet Americans still won't move out of the country. Why? Why won't they leave behind that dream now that it has become a nightmare?

GonzoTheGreat
06-20-2014, 08:10 AM
You're under the mistaken impression that they'll ever be allowed to take credit for those good ideas.
Which specific clause of the US Constitution prohibits that?
If there isn't one, and I suspect there isn't, then it is not that they are not allowed to take credit, but that they are not willing to do so.

When something goes wrong, it's Bush's fault, and when something goes right, Obama gets the credit.
Are you sure that when a Bush policy pays off nowawadays, Fox News gives Obama credit for it?
Once again, I do not think that you are correct. However, never having watched Fox, I can't be certain; I may be mistaken about who they would credit in such a case.

eht slat meit
06-20-2014, 05:04 PM
Which specific clause of the US Constitution prohibits that?

Why on earth would you leap to the outfield assumption that I'm referring to the constitution? I'm talking politics and the rampant Democratic culture of "we say so, therefore it's true."

Seriously, I hear every bit as much of "It's all Bush's fault" and "it's all the Republicans fault' as I do the same from the other side of the fence. Neither has a good thing to say about the other, and neither wants to allow the other the opportunity to claim credit for any good thing that happens.

Unfortunately, Democrats have the completely undeserved, unwarranted and unearned weight of their say-so to prevent Republicans from taking credit for anything in the arena of public opinion. Republicans know that, so they stick to the attack. It's a vicious cycle, and an election year to boot, so neither side will do anything productive, and any small gains and losses will be magnified to the umpteenth degree.

I realize that the Democrats have the same dumb impression that Republicans like to take on, the belief that they have some kind of "mandate", but that's neither true nor productive to progress.

Are you sure that when a Bush policy pays off nowawadays, Fox News gives Obama credit for it?

Oh hell no, I doubt they even credited him when he stabbed the Democratic party in the back on their behalf.

Then again, I don't watch Fox news for several reasons, including Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, so that's me talking from experience that goes back way too many years.

eht slat meit
06-20-2014, 05:04 PM
And yet Americans still won't move out of the country. Why? Why won't they leave behind that dream now that it has become a nightmare?

Because the "nightmare" is a figment of the wild imagination that spawns from partisan histrionics.

Terez
06-21-2014, 12:17 AM
I don't watch Fox news for several reasons, including Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, so that's me talking from experience that goes back way too many years.
Beck has not been at Fox for some time. However, Megyn Kelly did have him on the other day, and he said that the liberals were right about Iraq, and that he wished he'd spent his time at Fox trying to unite people instead of dividing them.

No, really. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/18/1307783/-Glenn-Beck-Admits-Liberals-You-Were-Right-On-Iraq)

eht slat meit
06-21-2014, 09:20 AM
Curse of the talking head - talking a lot of crap for the sake of the ideology, rather than any sort of integrity or truth. Kind of surprised to see him own up to it as I've yet to see any of these people on either side of the spectrum that I'd believe have the honesty to own up to it.

Too little, too late, and those in charge find it's far more useful to keep people divided than united.

Unfortunately, it seems likely that the either side of the fence is going to come to a consensus that will ever do Iraq any good.

GonzoTheGreat
06-21-2014, 10:18 AM
Hey, if you'd followed my suggestion ("don't invade") then that would have done a lot more good (less bad, at least) than the option which the Anglo-American Axis actually chose.

eht slat meit
06-21-2014, 10:40 AM
Hey, if you'd followed my suggestion ("don't invade") then that would have done a lot more good (less bad, at least) than the option which the Anglo-American Axis actually chose.

If *I* had followed your suggestion? Boy, I'm not George Bush, I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican, and I did not support that worthless atrocity of a war.

Spare your self-righteous and borderline bigoted condescension for one of the actual parties involved, of which I've named three.

Sodas
06-21-2014, 05:03 PM
But it has been years now that American conservatives are blaming Obama for keeping to the schedule for withdrawal that Bush set. And in all those years they never ever have made any attempt to come up with a suggestion of what other option that would have been preferable was available to Obama.

I think that's fundamentally wrong.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/when-obama-and-romney-argued-about-iraq-and-russia

"ROMNEY: I’m sorry, you actually — there was a — there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with…"

Bush and Romney wanted to leave some troops behind. Obama none.

So conservatives blamed Obama for not keeping Bush's schedule, contrary to the statement made. And, in doing so, offered a contrasting option to that taken by Obama.

Basically, I asked you to prove that Republicans are doing politics in good faith. Since they aren't, you can't provide proof of it, and I think that you know this.


Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

The US is a representational democracy for this reason. The framers knew that people didn't always act in good faith, particularly when given power, that is why the US Constitution is setup to separate powers.

In this case, the Resolution to invade Iraq included :

82 Democratic Representatives
29 Democratic Senators

So let us just remember that Democrats voted for the War as well.


That said, back to the point about Republicans acting in good faith. People can be corrupted and act against the interest of their constituency in general, so no one group is immune. However, in general, Republicans act as a party of faith. It takes two seconds to "prove" it.

Roe v. Wade.

Agree, Disagree, Republicans want it overturned. They have been fighting it tooth and nail since it's inception.

That's politics of good faith.

It's just some people don't see it that way. They see it as an encroachment on some right unknown in the constitution.

It's a difference in world view. Same thing goes for removing the name G-D from coins and the pledge of allegiance, ban religious after school programs and moments of silence, removing the debate over Darwinism. What some consider good, others not so much.

US Public middle and high school teachers can't even admit that there is a debate on evolution (http://youtu.be/RQmpmj5WMUc or http://youtu.be/b-A4Jyf8Ohk). No wonder our children are doing so poorly in international tests starting at the 6th grade, because they don't learn about potentially controversial, but scientific, issues such as the Cambrian Explosion (http://youtu.be/qKMKYd0WSV0 or http://youtu.be/VHeSaUq-Hl8). Teachers are scared to teach anything but Darwinian evolution. On top of that, teachers are often shunned for wearing Christmas symbols on their lapels (I see this and I'm Jewish, wishing Christians a merry Christmas). They get sued or run off. Last time I checked, the freedom to practice religion actually is in the constitution. So is freedom of the press, in regards to Fox News.

Instead, you have teachers preaching Bush is Hitler, and trying to get public education to teach "condom's prevent heterosexuals from getting AIDS" starting in kindergarten or 1st grade. That whole thing was concocted on bogus science, btw, but for a good cause in their own minds of course.

That is another faith. It's all faith, just depends on what point of view you want to look at it from. You can have faith in moral relativism or bogus science. Faith doesn't require a God - just ask the Buddhists or Shintos. Faith in Darwinian evolution despite the evidence in the fossil record to the contrary, should make it a religion. A religion that get's taught as a "fact" in public schools across the US without debate should be labeled a religion so it can be pointed out for what it is.

It's like arguing against a flat earth at this point. If you are Atheist, maybe you need evolution to be true to believe there is no G-d, you need an "origin story" too.... but that's the whole thing about religions - they end up often times in Valhalla once new science comes out that contradicts the old theories.

GonzoTheGreat
06-22-2014, 03:44 AM
I think that's fundamentally wrong.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/when-obama-and-romney-argued-about-iraq-and-russia

"ROMNEY: I’m sorry, you actually — there was a — there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with…"

Bush and Romney wanted to leave some troops behind. Obama none.

So conservatives blamed Obama for not keeping Bush's schedule, contrary to the statement made. And, in doing so, offered a contrasting option to that taken by Obama.
All right, I'll bite:
Under what specific rules and conditions did those conservatives wants those troops to stay there?

Any at all?
Obama got a proposal from Maliki that American troops could stay, if those troops would then be fully liable under Iraqi law. This could, of course, have resulted in an American female soldier flogged for adultery if she were raped, but that's the price that would have to be paid for accepting this proposal.

Only if an agreement was acceptable from both the American and the Iraqi POV?
That was what Obama and Maliki tried to achieve, but they did not manage it. Obama not because he wasn't willing to let Americans soldiers be tried by Iraqi judges, Maliki not because (as a result of Abu Ghraib and such) he could not afford to sign a deal where Americans could continue acting with impunity.

So what specific deal do you think was possible?
The only one that I ever heard of that Obama could have agreed to (if the Senate had let him get away with it) would have meant letting the American soldiers fall under the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts and Iraqi law enforcement. American conservatives wouldn't accept that, I think, and neither did Obama. But there was no alternative apart from retreat, and that is what Obama did.

eht slat meit
06-22-2014, 10:24 AM
All right, I'll bite:
Under what specific rules and conditions did those conservatives wants those troops to stay there?

Probably under the usual terms. Who knows? Conservatives, like liberals, say they want one thing and change it at a moment's notice. Fine example...


Obama got a proposal from Maliki that American troops could stay, if those troops would then be fully liable under Iraqi law.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/11/18/56116/unofficial-translation-of-us-iraq.html

I feel that, at least in this case, the reason you are parroting a piece of propaganda in good faith is because you mistakenly bought some Bush propaganda. Let's clarify.

Way back at the beginning of Iraq, contractors were brought in. Halliburton is the best known of these, but Blackwater has itself a nasty reputation as well. Blackwater, if anyone is unclear on this, is a bunch of mercernaries rebranded as "security contractors" that were hired on by the state department for various roles that could otherwise have been performed by our own troops at large expense to the taxpayers.

What isn't well known is that after Bush "shocked and awed" the unloving christ out of Iraq and things were being put together, a temporary constitution was put in place. This constitution quite literally and explicitly gave every single "contractor" in Iraq complete immunity from ALL Iraqi laws.

Blackwater didn't answer to the UN.
Blackwater didn't answer to the USCMJ.
Blackwater didn't answer to the Iraqis.

They were quite literally immune to every single law on the planet and completely free to murder anyone they wanted at will in Iraq. The worst that would ever happen is they get "fired" and "deported" back to the USA where they retire with their fat contracts.

You can see where the Iraqis MIGHT have had a slight problem with this.

So of COURSE that SOFA I linked will include ensuring that contractors abide by Iraqi laws. They don't like it? I'm sure another contractor would happily take their place, of which there are many competitors.

They were not asking for an unreasonable or uncommon SOFA agreement, simply one very much like other countries have.

Those TRULY concerned about the women will note that these laws do not extend to the jurisdiction of the United States army, and quite frankly any woman stupid enough to take on with a company like Blackwater outside of those installations is asking to be dragged to death through the streets at the VERY LEAST.

GonzoTheGreat
06-22-2014, 11:15 AM
That agreement to which you provided a link was signed under Bush, and it was valid for three years. The agreement which Obama was supposed to have reached is the one that would have replaced this. And that is the one over which no consensus could be reached, because as a result of Iraqi politics, brought about by all those issues that arose under Bush, Maliki could not afford to sign a document with "the usual terms".

Maybe the example of a female soldier being convicted for adultery after rape would not have happened. But there are plenty of other examples that would have.
For instance, suppose that some American at a road block shot at a car that he thought was threatening, and he kills a couple of kids. That happened before, but now an Iraqi judge would be presiding over the trial, deciding whether or not that soldier should be hanged for murder. Actually, if some of the American soldiers in my country started setting up road blocks and shooting people, then I don't know who would have the right to put them on trial either. I hope I won't have to find out, but I doubt "the usual terms" include such law enforcement replacement as a matter of course.

They were not asking for an unreasonable or uncommon SOFA agreement, simply one very much like other countries have.
How many people have been shot at roadblocks in the last decade by American soldiers in Germany? In the UK? In Japan? In Canada? In Italy?
How many people have been shot at from American army helicopters in any of those countries in that time?

I suspect the answer is zero. I also suspect that if it had happened, there would be at least a very public enquiry and a lot of trouble.
As far as I know, Italy is still trying to get an American pilot extradited who downed an aerial tramway years ago. It would be very embarrassing if dozens of US soldiers got put on Interpol lists because Iraq wanted them to stand trial as would happen under "the usual terms".

The upshot is simple: the Iraqi did not want to accept the kind of agreement they had been forced to sign by Bush, and Obama was not willing to sign the kind of agreement that would have been acceptable to someone like Muqtada al-Sadr. So Obama could either carry out "regime change" once again, which would have caused a lot of trouble, or leave.

eht slat meit
06-22-2014, 11:35 AM
That agreement to which you provided a link was signed under Bush, and it was valid for three years. The agreement which Obama was supposed to have reached is the one that would have replaced this.

YOu've offered nothing to support your theory that the replacement was anything other than a renewal of the old and very much *working* SOFA.

And that is the one over which no consensus could be reached, because as a result of Iraqi politics, brought about by all those issues that arose under Bush, Maliki could not afford to sign a document with "the usual terms".

Provide that "alternative" and we can talk. I'm not going to take your word for it, particularly when there's information to the contrary, specifically this - suggesting that Obama was the one trying to change the terms, and not Maliki.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380907/obama-stops-bragging-about-withdrawal-iraq-spencer-case

Obama wanted to revise the new contract to give complete immunity to American troops. Completely unacceptable, and I expect he knew based on Blackwater's history that Maliki would not accept it and he would be free to remove troops from Iraq in accordance with his election year promises.

You will note that the previous version did not allow American troops legal immunity but worked just fine.

For instance, suppose that some American at a road block shot at a car that he thought was threatening, and he kills a couple of kids.

Then he answers to the USCMJ, same as under the previous SOFA. There is a reason the military grinds the potential for these situations into soldiers heads - it would NOT be the first time it has happened (Note: South Korea), and wouldn't be the last.

Again, USCMJ. No Iraqis. This is why it is very, very important to know who answers to the law and when... and exactly what law. That was the problem with Blackwater. They answered to none.

To answer your question - the answer is yes, that is what constitutes an international incident. It is a giant diplomatic mess, and any soldier not very carefully and rigidly following protocol is going to get his/her (lady)balls handed back.


The upshot is simple: the Iraqi did not want to accept the kind of agreement they had been forced to sign by Bush, and Obama was not willing to sign the kind of agreement that would have been acceptable to someone like Muqtada al-Sadr.

The true upshot is that Obama wanted to change the terms of the extended contract to allow legal immunity, a completely unacceptable arrangement by any reasonable person.

But hey, at least he got to keep his promise regarding the troops, right?

This is what we call "negotiating in bad faith" Negotiating in good faith would have required him to break his promises.

And before you shed those Demmy tears, dem evil Reps do the same thing. Dry em.

Sodas
06-22-2014, 01:14 PM
All right, I'll bite:
Under what specific rules and conditions did those conservatives wants those troops to stay there?


Condition 1 : Romney is President.

The rest follows. Assume Romney.

Troops in war zones on active duty fall under US military judicial court martial. Off duty troop legal issues can be negotiated with the host country. In Japan, the US has strict control because of Japanese police pushing conviction rates. Similar conditions would be needed in Iraq because of extreme local laws, along with curfews like in S. Korea, and possibly additional restrictions on women in the military deployed to Iraq. It can happen, given enough political will on the part of the US.

But who cares what the conservatives thought? The conservatives lost the 2012 election, so anything they put forward is mute. Obama was in control of the negotiation process, as well as giving additional powers to JSOC.

You are right in that he retreated. That is on Obama, as well as :


Stayed in Afghanistan (contrary to his 2014 goal) and is now looking for a SOFA for 2015+
Let JSOC run wild outside war zones (In Yemen)
Let JSOC run it's own torture programs
Let JSOC murder US citizens without trial
In Syria, by not arming the resistance, he has allowed ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq Syria) to form in the power vacuum.
ISIS has taken over Iraq (eliminating secular competition)

Kimon
06-22-2014, 01:45 PM
In Syria, by not arming the resistance, he has allowed ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq Syria) to form in the power vacuum.
ISIS has taken over Iraq (eliminating secular competition)
[/LIST]

ISIS seems to be a symbiosis of two forces, the former Baathists, secular Sunnis that were excluded from meaningful inclusion in the post-Saddam Iraq, and members of the resistance to Assad in Syria. Rand Paul actually blamed their rise to us arming them. There's a reason why there was so much debate over just what to do with Syria and the rebels therein - namely the fact that we don't trust any of these rebels. As for the Sunni Baathists. They were a lot more secular than the Shia that we allowed to replace them.

If you want to criticize Obama here you should be critical of his decision to send any "advisors" back in. Syria was and is a mess, as is Iraq. We should just admit that Bush was an idiot to get involved in the first place, that Obama was an idiot for not withdrawing from these pointless wars in more timely fashion, and that if we have no desire to see either side in a civil war win, that that might be a good indication to not get directly involved.

Here's a link to what Paul said today:

http://thehill.com/policy/international/210168-us-has-been-arming-isis-in-syria-sen-paul-claims

eht slat meit
06-22-2014, 02:11 PM
and that if we have no desire to see either side in a civil war win, that that might be a good indication to not get directly involved.


Question - since when is a an attack by Syrian terrorists against an Iraqi government a form of "civil war"?

Kimon
06-22-2014, 02:16 PM
Question - since when is a an attack by Syrian terrorists against an Iraqi government a form of "civil war"?

A lot of these forces are Iraqis, hence my mention of the Baathists. It's a Sunni vs. Shia struggle.

eht slat meit
06-22-2014, 02:52 PM
A lot of these forces are Iraqis, hence my mention of the Baathists. It's a Sunni vs. Shia struggle.

That's like exporting a bunch of Christians to Egypt, allying with a few local Copts and calling it a Christian vs Muslim struggle.

Please, it's not a civil war when it's an outside multi-national terrorist organization invading a sovereign nation.

Kimon
06-22-2014, 03:08 PM
That's like exporting a bunch of Christians to Egypt, allying with a few local Copts and calling it a Christian vs Muslim struggle.

Please, it's not a civil war when it's an outside multi-national terrorist organization invading a sovereign nation.

Many, perhaps even most, of these forces involved in ISIS, especially those fighting in Iraq rather than those active in Syria, are Sunnis native to Iraq. There are also Syrian Sunnis and foreign Sunnis, but most of them, including their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (probably a pseudonym, but presumed to be from Samarra in Iraq) are Iraqis. They grew out of al-Qaeda in Iraq (before breaking ties with them), and joined with al-Nusra in Syria. They are Baathists, plus Syrians, plus foreigners, but all Sunnis, and they are fighting the Shia government placed in power by us. It's a civil war, or if you prefer, two connected civil wars.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24179084

Nazbaque
06-22-2014, 04:13 PM
If you want to criticize Obama here you should be critical of his decision to send any "advisors" back in. Syria was and is a mess, as is Iraq. We should just admit that Bush was an idiot to get involved in the first place, that Obama was an idiot for not withdrawing from these pointless wars in more timely fashion, and that if we have no desire to see either side in a civil war win, that that might be a good indication to not get directly involved.
Unless of course what you really want is that the war doesn't end at all. Keep the fire burning. Have the terrorists fight each other so they won't get the chance to repeat 9/11. Divide far enough and there is no need to conquer.

Sodas
06-22-2014, 04:19 PM
Rand Paul actually blamed their rise to us arming them.

Rand and the right wing "echo chamber" have been saying since 2013 that Obama waived federal law against directly arming a known terrorist organization.

I doubt it. I think most rational people doubt it.

Obama denied we directly armed terrorist groups in Syria. I take him at his word.

Close as I got, was a Washington Post article suggesting the CIA was arming moderate "rebel" groups, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html.

Southpaw2012
06-22-2014, 07:31 PM
Rand and the right wing "echo chamber" have been saying since 2013 that Obama waived federal law against directly arming a known terrorist organization.

I doubt it. I think most rational people doubt it.

Obama denied we directly armed terrorist groups in Syria. I take him at his word.

Close as I got, was a Washington Post article suggesting the CIA was arming moderate "rebel" groups, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html.


"Obama denied we directly armed terrorist groups in Syria. I take him at his word."

You lost me right there. Seriously, what the fuck. The fact that anyone still gives any credibility to this president is mind boggling. American's should be very afraid of what goes on in Iraq, at the moment. This isn't some rag tag group of rebels out to cause mayhem. It's a billion dollar terrorist organization hell bent on turning Iraq into a terrorist state. In fact, one of their leaders was released from Guantanamo Bay and the last thing he said was, "I'll see you in New York." Oh wait, he was just a poor victim of Guantanamo, right liberals? Seriously, get a fucking grip.

Kimon
06-22-2014, 08:13 PM
"Obama denied we directly armed terrorist groups in Syria. I take him at his word."

You lost me right there. Seriously, what the fuck. The fact that anyone still gives any credibility to this president is mind boggling. American's should be very afraid of what goes on in Iraq, at the moment. This isn't some rag tag group of rebels out to cause mayhem. It's a billion dollar terrorist organization hell bent on turning Iraq into a terrorist state. In fact, one of their leaders was released from Guantanamo Bay and the last thing he said was, "I'll see you in New York." Oh wait, he was just a poor victim of Guantanamo, right liberals? Seriously, get a fucking grip.

Our involvement only exacerbates the problem. Best to just stay out of the fray and let the Saudis and Iranians continue their proxy war without getting directly drawn in ourselves.

eht slat meit
06-22-2014, 08:44 PM
Many, perhaps even most, of these forces involved in ISIS, especially those fighting in Iraq rather than those active in Syria, are Sunnis native to Iraq.


Unsurprisingly, given the terrorist and secretive nature of such groups, your source is able to provide no stats to back such a claim.

It's a multinational organization with deep roots that span more countries even than just Iraq and Syria, and commands the privilege of previous sponsorship by an umbrella terrorist organization that spans much of the middle east.

Granting terrorists who have not earned such a privilege the right to call their actions a "civil war" suggests that said terrorists have the right to not only bring down Iraq, but the entire middle east and force it under a single violent regime.

eht slat meit
06-22-2014, 08:49 PM
Our involvement only exacerbates the problem. Best to just stay out of the fray and let the Saudis and Iranians continue their proxy war without getting directly drawn in ourselves.

Yeah, 9/11 would never have happened *if only* that idiot George Bush had never invaded Iraq. Oh, wait...

Leaving terrorists alone doesn't actually mean they'll stick to killing each other, it means that you wait your turn until they get around to figuring out a way to mass murder civilians in your country again.

I agree in principle that we should never have gotten involved in Iraq, but the suggestion that we should simply leave terrorists to their own devices is how atrocities happen... again... and again... and again. The hornet's nest comes to you, you do not come to the hornet's nest.

Unless you promote a country where we hide in our little shell, and have nothing to do with anyone that might piss an angry little jihadist off and all convert to a religion that most of us don't believe in, you're not going to change that by "leaving them alone".

You deal with it, and pro-actively. You just don't deal with it like an idiot who is only out for their own self-interest, ala the Bush Administration.

Nazbaque
06-22-2014, 10:18 PM
"Obama denied we directly armed terrorist groups in Syria. I take him at his word."

You lost me right there. Seriously, what the fuck. The fact that anyone still gives any credibility to this president is mind boggling. American's should be very afraid of what goes on in Iraq, at the moment. This isn't some rag tag group of rebels out to cause mayhem. It's a billion dollar terrorist organization hell bent on turning Iraq into a terrorist state. In fact, one of their leaders was released from Guantanamo Bay and the last thing he said was, "I'll see you in New York." Oh wait, he was just a poor victim of Guantanamo, right liberals? Seriously, get a fucking grip.

You know it's starting to sound like the USA is a terrorist state.

Kimon
06-22-2014, 11:05 PM
Yeah, 9/11 would never have happened *if only* that idiot George Bush had never invaded Iraq. Oh, wait...



9/11 justified attacking al-Qaeda, not Iraq. Unfortunately that war has ended with the Taliban still essentially in control in Afghanistan, and western Pakistan, Pakistanis hating us even more than before, and Afghanistan becoming an even more messed up, broken, terrorist training grounds than it had been before. So, did we really do more good than harm? Was it worth the expense?

And that's just Afghanistan. Iraq was an even greater failure considering that we took a brutal, albeit stable secular state and rendered it a failed state, and a terrorist mecca due to our invasion. Was that more good than harm?

I agree in principle that we should never have gotten involved in Iraq, but the suggestion that we should simply leave terrorists to their own devices is how atrocities happen... again... and again... and again. The hornet's nest comes to you, you do not come to the hornet's nest.

You could argue that at least in being there we are offering them an easy proximate target, our troops, rather than the more distant target, our cities and civilians. But the main point stands, throwing oil on a fire doesn't put out the fire, it just strengthens the fire.

Unless you promote a country where we hide in our little shell, and have nothing to do with anyone that might piss an angry little jihadist off and all convert to a religion that most of us don't believe in, you're not going to change that by "leaving them alone".

Close actually. I'd sign a peace treaty with Iran, and let them get the bomb, with the clear understanding that if ANYONE hits us with such technology we will blame them and respond with the complete annihilation of their people. If they hit Israel with such technology, I'd make clear that that's Israel's problem not ours. They're capable of responding in kind on their own. Which gets to part two of putting out the fire. Make clear that we consider Israel's refusal to allow Palestine to become an actual state is criminal, that their occupation of parts of the West Bank is criminal, and that these acts must be rectified, or all our support will be withdrawn.

Kimon
06-22-2014, 11:14 PM
You know it's starting to sound like the USA is a terrorist state.

"He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself; and if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss will gaze into you" — Friederick Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals

Unfortunately, Nietzsche was correct...

eht slat meit
06-22-2014, 11:20 PM
9/11 justified attacking al-Qaeda, not Iraq.

I'm not sure what part of "George Bush is an idiot" or "I agree in principle that we should never have gotten involved in Iraq", but if it's not clear, I'm saying that we should never have gotten involved in Iraq, and dealing with terrorists wasn't the way to do it. I didn't buy that lie.

Unfortunately that war has ended with the Taliban still essentially in control in Afghanistan

That's not true, and it's rather odd that Obama felt the need to add to their manpower in recovering it from Karzai.

Pakistanis hating us even more than before

Given that Pakistan saw fit to conceal bin Laden, I'm not sure why you would care for one second how much they hate us.

So, did we really do more good than harm? Was it worth the expense?

Absolutely not, but I do consider Iraq an entirely separate issue from Afghanistan. We have allies that gladly followed us into that country and last I heard are still there, where they would not (rightly so) follow us into Iraq.

Quite frankly, Afghanistan's leadership was that of a terrorist state that closely protected a fleeing mass murderer and the Taliban needed to be removed for their actions.

Removing them was far more good than harm. Why we would be sent a long way back to square one for a loser like Bergdahl eludes me.

Iraq was an even greater failure considering that we took a brutal, albeit stable secular state and rendered it a failed state, and a terrorist mecca due to our invasion. Was that more good than harm?

Agreed.

Close actually. I'd sign a peace treaty with Iran, and let them get the bomb, with the clear understanding that if ANYONE hits us with such technology we will blame them and respond with the complete annihilation of their people.

The problem with MAD theory is that it only works on reasonable people. The second the weapons you so cheerfully handed over to them get in the hands of someone who doesn't care, we're dead meat, and not all the glass-filled former sandlots will ever change that. But hey, they'll have their little Valhalla and we'll have a stinking deathpit called planet earth.

If they hit Israel with such technology, I'd make clear that that's Israel's problem not ours.

That you would let mass murder and a planetary attack on that scale go unanswered says even more.
It was an atrocity on the scale of pure ignorance when the USA did it, there is no justification for a repeat nor any reason that a nation doing it shouldn't be immediately forced through an instant regime change via the shock and awe tactics.

They're capable of responding in kind on their own.

They're completely capable to adding to the poison that the nation that just nuked them added to the planet, you mean. You think the surrounding nations, and the rest of us aren't going to feel the fallout?

Quite frankly, a nuclear response to a nuclear attack is damaged and archaic thinking. You respond with annihilation of the guilty parties, not genocide.

I'm not going to go further into the Israel dispute as Iraq is really what this topic is about, but some things just had to be said.

Kimon
06-22-2014, 11:24 PM
Quite frankly, a nuclear response to a nuclear attack is damaged and archaic thinking. You respond with annihilation of the guilty parties, not genocide.


Agreed, but then that's a bluff that you just have to hope isn't called. I still think that Iran with the bomb is less dangerous than Pakistan already having the bomb. As for Israel, I still feel solving the Palestinian issue is the only thing that we could do to start putting out the fire, rather than merely feeding it.

eht slat meit
06-22-2014, 11:35 PM
Agreed, but then that's a bluff that you just have to hope isn't called. I still think that Iran with the bomb is less dangerous than Pakistan already having the bomb. As for Israel, I still feel solving the Palestinian issue is the only thing that we could do to start putting out the fire, rather than merely feeding it.

I tend to disagree, as any kind of proliferation on any excuse is insanely dangerous. What happens when China or Russia decides - hey, these idiots just guaranteed Iran gets taken out and the USA gets taken out by a mutual nuclear exchanges. It's in OUR benefit to make sure such a mistake happens, because we runt he planet after they're done...

There are some tremendously sick brain in the world in power, and not all of them are limited to China or Russia.

I will call MAD thinking not just damaged and archaic, but fundamentally broken. The only way you can guarantee *that* kind of nasty little manipulation doesn't happen is not just completely reasonable but to be unreasonable and to state that not just ONE enemy but ALL enemies gets nuked as well, guaranteeing that most everyone dies in the fallout.

Which still requires someone to care whether the whole world turns into a burning meteorite if they push the button.

With proliferation, the more people that have it, the more likely someone who is willing to push the button in spite of all common sense or caring who gets hurt is to get it.

Kimon
06-22-2014, 11:42 PM
With proliferation, the more people that have it, the more likely someone who is willing to push the button in spite of all common sense or caring who gets hurt is to get it.

We've been living with that possibility already since the Pakistanis became a nuclear power. The same is essentially true of North Korea in terms of both their own potential for insanity, and their own potential for dissemination of such technology to third parties. I trust Iran more than either of those countries.

Sodas
06-23-2014, 01:27 AM
"Obama denied we directly armed terrorist groups in Syria. I take him at his word."

You lost me right there. Seriously, what the fuck. The fact that anyone still gives any credibility to this president is mind boggling.

I don't make that call based upon what he said. I make that based upon the facts available, which seem to be that we avoided putting lethal arms in terrorist hands. Rand has gone off the deep end before.

If that's wrong, who cares? The laundry list is way worse than just breaking a federal law at this point. That's chump change.

American's should be very afraid of what goes on in Iraq, at the moment. This isn't some rag tag group of rebels out to cause mayhem. It's a billion dollar terrorist organization hell bent on turning Iraq into a terrorist state.

I know, and agree.

In fact, one of their leaders was released from Guantanamo Bay and the last thing he said was, "I'll see you in New York." Oh wait, he was just a poor victim of Guantanamo, right liberals? Seriously, get a fucking grip.

I'm not a liberal. Nor a moral-relativist.

Sodas
06-23-2014, 01:43 AM
Close actually. I'd sign a peace treaty with Iran, and let them get the bomb,

Stop right there.

Iran with the bomb? Are you nuts?

These guys wants to wipe you, if you are a US citizen, off the map. You are an infidel unless you are muslim, and if they had the bomb, they'd nuke you.

So, no.

Even if you wanted to let them get the bomb, that won't happen.

Israel bombed their nuclear facilities before, they will do it again, even if we don't.

Period.

They're capable of responding in kind on their own.

Duh.

Make clear that we consider Israel's refusal to allow Palestine to become an actual state is criminal,

1947 proposal.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png

Notice the Arab state in the UN Partition Plan for Palestine.

What happened you may ask?

"Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain under international control administered by the United Nations. The Palestinian Arabs refused to recognize this arrangement, which they regarded as favorable to the Jews and unfair to the Arab population that would remain in Jewish territory under the partition."

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

So they started killing Jews.

So not only were the Palestinians criminals for murdering Jews, but criminals for not even letting their own state exist.

Terez
06-23-2014, 01:45 AM
Seriously, what the fuck.
It lives!

eht slat meit
06-23-2014, 05:57 AM
We've been living with that possibility already since the Pakistanis became a nuclear power. The same is essentially true of North Korea in terms of both their own potential for insanity, and their own potential for dissemination of such technology to third parties. I trust Iran more than either of those countries.

Flawed premise: That any nation can, now and forever until the end of that nuclear knowledge's shelf life, be safely entrusted with nuclear power status.

The list of nations I "trust" to ANY degree with said power comes to a whopping fat zero, and when I say that I am including every last one of those that already has it, as well as my own.

Kimon
06-23-2014, 08:39 AM
Stop right there.

Iran with the bomb? Are you nuts?

These guys wants to wipe you, if you are a US citizen, off the map. You are an infidel unless you are muslim, and if they had the bomb, they'd nuke you.

So, no.



This is paranoia. Are there long-standing grounds for animosity? Of course. It goes back to Mossadegh, was fed by the Shah, and then was exacerbated by our present sanctions and our partisan support of the Israelis against the Palestinians. An apology and recognition of the injustice of all these would help in alleviating those old grievances. It wouldn't remove all animus, but we must recognize that their hostility towards us is not unjustified. Does that mean we can trust them? Can they trust us? We'd already have normalized relations with them if the answer to those two questions was a definitive yes, nonetheless, this relationship should be repaired, and is worth the risk of attempting. Doing so would benefit Iran economically, and could carry the potential windfalls of helping to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan (both of which they are more capable of assisting than can we), and, with more normalized relations between us, Iran could help in facilitating lasting peace in the region by pressuring the Palestinians to come to the table, while we could pressure the Israelis to do likewise.

GonzoTheGreat
06-23-2014, 09:08 AM
Plus, no matter the propaganda, the Iranians are less extreme in their religious ideas than the Saudi are. It is the latter who are promoting Wahhabbism all over the world, which so often results in Al Qaeda branches getting recruits.

Sodas
06-23-2014, 03:19 PM
This is paranoia. Are there long-standing grounds for animosity? Of course. It goes back to Mossadegh, was fed by the Shah, and then was exacerbated by our present sanctions and our partisan support of the Israelis against the Palestinians.

Who gives two ----s about how they feel?

Liberal statements like that sound like Michael Dukkakis. Why not just let all first degree murderers, without a chance of parole, out on furlough?

You don't reward criminals by listening to them and protecting their rights.

And yes, Iran is a criminal state.

The reason the US is sanctioning Iran is because it's known as the largest, single supporter of terrorist groups around the World.

"Every other year, the State Department produces a list of terrorist states, states that sponsor terrorism and use it as a political tool. [The State Department has] done this since at least the middle-1990s. ... And every year, Iran has been identified as the single most important state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Iran has, in a way that is almost qualitatively different from any entity on earth except maybe the Palestinian Authority, used terror as a conscious tool of state policy. And the United States has said so again and again and again. It hasn't always said so from a State of the Union [address]. [It] said so in print, and it said so through its actions. The United States maintains sanctions against Iran because it recognizes Iran, and has recognized Iran, for a long time as a terror-sponsoring state."

-David Frum

So stop apologizing for criminals, both Iranian and Palestinian Arab.

An apology and recognition of the injustice of all these would help in alleviating those old grievances.

Wow.... boooo hoo... here is a tissue for them.

It wouldn't remove all animus, but we must recognize that their hostility towards us is not unjustified. Does that mean we can trust them? Can they trust us?

No. We can't trust them. Not going to trust state sponsors of terrorism.

Who cares if they trust us. Pointless liberal bs.

We'd already have normalized relations with them if the answer to those two questions was a definitive yes,

We don't. It's called sanctions. And for damn good reasons.

nonetheless, this relationship should be repaired, and is worth the risk of attempting.

I can't wait for all their exports of ???? dust?

Doing so would benefit Iran economically

Once again, their problem, not ours. They can stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and the complete destruction of Israel any time they want.

What I want to know is when is Hezbollah going to apologize to the US for killing Marines in Beruit, in 1983. And in the same token, Iran and Palestinians since they currently support both.

and could carry the potential windfalls of helping to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan (both of which they are more capable of assisting than can we), and, with more normalized relations between us, Iran could help in facilitating lasting peace in the region by pressuring the Palestinians to come to the table

Doesn't mean a darn thing if the Palestinians are never serious in negotiation. We tried that with them in the 90's, Camp David with Arafat, it was called "Land for Peace." What the Israeli's got was false deals and Palestinian Arab's breaking promises.

No wonder no one trusts the Palestinian Arabs or Iranians anymore. The bi-partisan mistrust of Palestinian Arabs has been around since the 40's, when they allied with Nazi Germany, and nothing since has convinced anyone otherwise.

Edited in for reference :
http://youtu.be/glDDyJkQoFU
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/175316#.U6iZPfldWSo
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/174532#.U6iaYvldWSo
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/172625#.U6if_PldWSo

"Here is a typical example of the propaganda broadcast by the Mufti in 1942. I quote, "If England is defeated and its allies overwhelmed, it will provide a final solution to the Jewish question, which in our mind is the greatest danger". Between 1942 and 1944, he worked from his base in Berlin and tried to prevent Jews from being saved – in Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, Croatia – countries which, despite being enslaved to Hitler, allowed the Jews to escape to the Land of Israel and other places. The Mufti protested to the Nazis that they hadn't provided enough resources to prevent the escape of the refugee Jews from the Balkans. In his testimony at the Nuremberg Trials on August 6, 1947, the German commander Wilhelm Melchers said, "The Mufti made his protests known everywhere, in the Bureau of the Foreign Minister and the State Minister and in other headquarters of the S.S." On May 13, 1943, for example, the Mufti submitted a letter to the Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop in which he objected to the understandings Germany made which allowed for the deportation of 4,000 Jewish children from Bulgaria. He asked to see, "everyone," and I quote, "everyone wiped out".

"Eichmann's deputy, Dieter Wisliceny, provided the following chilling testimony at Nuremberg: "The Mufti played a role in the decision to destroy the Jews of Europe. The importance of his role cannot be ignored. The Mufti repeatedly proposed to the authorities with whom he was in contact, first and foremost Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, to destroy the European Jews. He saw in that an appropriate solution to the Palestinian question". Wisliceny even provided hearsay evidence that the Mufti was directly involved in the Final Solution. "The Mufti was one of the initiators of the methodical destruction of the Jews of Europe and was a partner and consultant to Eichmann and Hitler on how to execute the plan. He was one of Eichmann's best friends and constantly pushed him to speed up the destruction. With my own ears," he said, "I heard him say that he visited the gas chambers of Auschwitz anonymously in the company of Eichmann".

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/static/Resizer.ashx/news/468/282/460916.jpg
http://a7.org/Resizer.ashx?save=1&source=album&album=6&image=58784&a=455&b=1500
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/static/Resizer.ashx/news/468/282/422758.jpg

Pictures from 2000 and 2013.

eht slat meit
06-23-2014, 05:41 PM
An apology and recognition of the injustice of all these would help in alleviating those old grievances.could pressure the Israelis to do likewise.

Any apology and "recognition" of injustice isn't going to get you past helping another country acquire and weaponize chemical weapons for use against Iran. That's not the kind of stuff that goes away in a therapy group talk session, and anyone would be a fool to think the Iranians are going to buy that. That Israel would suddenly cave in and mea culpa as if they are the SOLE wrong-doer (cough bullshit cough cough) all along isn't going to happen in the real world.

It never ceases to amaze me how soft parts of our country have gotten that they actually believe nerfball diplomacy like this works in the real world, as if it were some online game where nobody has anything REAL on the line like centuries of ingrained hatred, religious in-fighting and outfighting, lethal levels of defensiveness and a score of other human faults.

Sodas
06-23-2014, 07:28 PM
Any apology and "recognition" of injustice isn't going to get you past helping another country acquire and weaponize chemical weapons for use against Iran. That's not the kind of stuff that goes away in a therapy group talk session, and anyone would be a fool to think the Iranians are going to buy that. That Israel would suddenly cave in and mea culpa as if they are the SOLE wrong-doer (cough bullshit cough cough) all along isn't going to happen in the real world.

It never ceases to amaze me how soft parts of our country have gotten that they actually believe nerfball diplomacy like this works in the real world, as if it were some online game where nobody has anything REAL on the line like centuries of ingrained hatred, religious in-fighting and outfighting, lethal levels of defensiveness and a score of other human faults.

I agree.

One might think Robert Jordan did too. After all, the Age of Legends and the War of Power is much a take on a time when people know war no more and are unable to defend themselves.

Kimon
06-23-2014, 10:11 PM
Any apology and "recognition" of injustice isn't going to get you past helping another country acquire and weaponize chemical weapons for use against Iran. That's not the kind of stuff that goes away in a therapy group talk session, and anyone would be a fool to think the Iranians are going to buy that. That Israel would suddenly cave in and mea culpa as if they are the SOLE wrong-doer (cough bullshit cough cough) all along isn't going to happen in the real world.



Iran has good reason not to trust us. Nonetheless, they would have much to gain through rapprochement, as would we. Economic concerns are what would bring them to the table. As for whether Israel shares culpability in their conflict, that is obvious. That does not mean they are solely guilty. Both they and the Palestinians have thoroughly dirtied their hands in this struggle. Nonetheless, they too would have an obvious interest in detente with the Palestinians. They unfortunately also continue to be at an impasse on three points crucial to any negotiations - the right to return, the settlements in the West Bank, and the fate of Jerusalem. There was a reason that Jerusalem and the Right to Return were specifically left out of the Camp David Accords back in '78. They were too divisive. Israel did however agree to the need for autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza. Nothing really meaningful progressed from there until Bill Clinton attempted to broker a lasting peace again in 2000. Again the same sticking points arose. We tend to blame Arafat, but Barak refused to give autonomy to all of the West Bank (because of the settlements), demanded control over all Palestinian airspace and the border between Palestine and Jordan. That's hardly autonomy. Jerusalem of course also was a problem. According to UN Resolution 242, following the '67 lines, Palestine should have been given East Jerusalem, including the sites of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. The Israelis balked at allowing Palestine complete sovereignty over this area. The other problem was the Right to Return. The Palestinians demanded this, Israel could not agree.

Clinton should have pressed an exchange - have Palestine concede the refugee issue in exchange for sovereignty over the Temple Mount and the closing of a certain number of settlements in the West Bank. This would be the logical starting point for a re-opening of negotiations. The Arabs tried again in 2002 and 2007. The Israelis outright rejected the overture in 2002, were slightly more open-minded in 2007. The refugees, settlements, and Jerusalem continued to be sticking points. We chose not to get involved. We should have.

Sodas
06-24-2014, 04:06 AM
That does not mean they are solely guilty. Both they and the Palestinians have thoroughly dirtied their hands in this struggle.

Bull. People have a right to defend themselves.

What you are saying is people who use self-defense to protect themselves from murders dirty their hands. Self-defense is not murder. Killing innocent Israeli citizens (not military) and using other Palestinian Arabs as human shields is. Sending missiles into Israeli communities hoping for retaliation is not a struggle. It's murder.

This conflict isn't about the right of an Arab state to exist. Never has been. That ship sailed so many times, stop pretending like it never happened. The entire conflict is about Israel's right as a state to exist. Neither the Palestinian Arabs nor Iranian government recognize that Israel has the right to exist as a state.

If Israel exists, in their feeble world view, then it makes Islam untrue. Islam believes itself to be the final religion, and with Jews holding Jerusalem, it just really grinds their gears because it proves that they aren't right. That's why they literally want to wipe Israel off the map.

In that, Islam has found a rationalization in Darwinism, and cohort in Atheism (once again).

From the recent Anti-Judeo/Christian push at UCLA,

http://www.truthrevolt.org/sites/default/files/styles/content_full_width/public/field/image/articles/download_13.jpeg?itok=GbHHPp7j

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/more-anti-semitism-ucla-israel-wiped-map-campus-club

The US will never back a policy of genocide again.

Yes, the US messes up from time to time, we are humans too. But we aren't "Pax Americana" in the intent it was used (which is not the context of the statement). Yes, we are an empire in the sense that we have colonies and at one point had slaves.

But guess what? One of those similarities ended 150 years ago.


We don't support forced slavery, or redistribution of people and forces, and have not for awhile - as did the Romans.

We didn't institutionalize torture, rape, and murdering of non-combatants as a military policy - as did the Romans.

We aren't Pagans - like the Romans were in most of it's eras, from Kingdom to Republic to Empire. Only by the splitting of the Empire by Constantinople, did the Empire become officially Christian, and by that time, it was already long past it's heyday. On the other hand, the US has been Judeo/Christian, and is currently, roughly 75% or so Judeo/Christians. Mostly believers in One God.

We didn't try to wipe Jews and Nazarenes off the face of the planet, multiple times, including destroying even the land itself, for believing in One God and being steadfast in their ways - as did the Romans.


The US is a great place, full of wonderful people and diversity of ideas. Bad things happen, but they happen much worse in other places. That's why so many people want to flock here. So you can see, the US isn't a nightmare. It's a dream. One that millions of people died for, and continue to die for.

What makes this whole thing work is Power is derived from We the People. So the US Government is really the people of the US. This is why I always look at some of my conservative brothers strangely when they say they want to "drown Government in the bathtub." Why would we want Anarchy, let alone drown ourselves in a bathtub?

You see, not every idea is a good idea.

Allowing Iran to gain nuclear capabilities, which I'm glad you don't even deny because it's self evident what their true intent has been in trying to purchase Uranium and long range missiles, is a bad idea. A really, really bad idea.

There was a reason that Jerusalem and the Right to Return were specifically left out of the Camp David Accords back in '78. They were too divisive.

That's laughable revisionism. The reason none of that ever was put in is because the Egyptians, the Israelis, some Palestinian representatives, and even the US Government under Carter (who has been labeled anti-Semitic by the anti-defamation league - http://archive.adl.org/carter/reactions.html) all agreed it was foolish. The Palestinian Arab's who had fought and left, were just playing a shell game.

The Right of Return

Carl Rove would have loved to invent this phrase. It basically means any Arab can move into Arab Palestine. It's a way to make it seem like the Palestinian Arab's want to return to their homes, as if they were pushed out by "plan dalet," but counter the propaganda here, no Palestinian Arabs were forced to leave. They left on their own accord after they had attacked the Israeli's. Most people not involved in the conflict stayed, peacefully. There are hundreds of thousands of Israeli Arab/Muslims happily living and working in Israel.

That's why everyone knows it's a ploy for open Arab immigration back into the state.

Jerusalem

Obviously, Muslims don't want Jews there for multiple reasons. They stopped Jews from being able to go to their Holy sites when they were in charge, long before Israel took back control of Jerusalem. In fact, Muslims notoriously destroyed Jewish Holy sites, murdered Jewish enclaves in the old city, and destroyed old Jewish homes when they were in charge (much like the Taliban destroyed Hindu artifacts/temples). Saladin would have been dismayed.

Now that Jews are in charge, Muslims are allowed to visit the Dome of the Rock (which still stands, unharmed and unmolested) because of the peace of Jerusalem that the Israeli's maintain. Not to mention, there are plenty of Israeli Muslims, who live in peace within the borders of Israel, as well as Israeli Christians and Druze. I've even stayed and eaten at the home of an Israeli Druze, vastly under rated in their love for the state of Israel, I may add.

Plus, Jewish archaeologists continue to discover amazing finds - including Jewish coinage from 4 thousands years ago - predating even biblical claims. So the more Jews dig, the more Palestinian's get uncomfortable because it becomes more and more clear that the Jews were in the land long before the Arabs.

Well guess what - The Palestinian Arabs and their allies shouldn't have attacked the Israeli's in 73 and lost Jerusalem. In 6 days no less (got their rears handed to them utterly)!

Luckily, the Jews didn't blow up the Islamic holy sites, like the Muslim's would have. Hence, no one rational worries about the Jews continuing to hold the Holy Land. Plus, as military experts across the world maintain, the Israeli's have done more for protecting innocent civilians being killed than any army in the history of the world.

According to UN Resolution 242, following the '67 lines, Palestine should have been given East Jerusalem, including the sites of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock.

Too bad the UN is broken, and has been since the 70's - more an institution that the Arab block abuses to attack the nation of Israel.

It's a known fact that the Arab states openly used (and continue to use) the UN to attack Jews/Christians and freedom of the Press.

http://youtu.be/RlIbb3RLAgU
http://youtu.be/yqRRdQU1CC8

In fact, Iran, in particular, is noted to be hypocritical because it's leaders deny the Holocaust and persecute non-Muslims in Iran. They currently have people on death row for so-called blasphemy. Not a country that's tolerant of other religions, or even views of their own religion, at all. They have systematically rounded up any opposition voice in their own country. It's a modern Islamic fascist state.

http://youtu.be/cCFfjhnWsY0
http://youtu.be/QbkGY1paqaM

Notice the last one. Syria sponsoring UN resolutions condemning Israel for acting like Nazi Germany, while at the same time, gassing it's own people (100,000+ people dead).

If anything good comes out of this whole thing - it may be that the Kurds across multiple lands may indeed win if they play it right.
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/middle-east/35247-140624-analysis-israel-and-the-kurds-silence-is-golden

Nazbaque
06-24-2014, 06:08 AM
Bull. People have a right to defend themselves.

What you are saying is people who use self-defense to protect themselves from murders dirty their hands. Self-defense is not murder. Killing innocent Israeli citizens (not military) and using other Palestinian Arabs as human shields is. Sending missiles into Israeli communities hoping for retaliation is not a struggle. It's murder.
If you take a life, you are a killer. Your motives, the circumstances and your actions afterwards may prove that you aren't evil, but killer you will be. Lesser evil is still evil. Killing in self-defence is a lesser evil. Pretending doing it was okay is a huge evil.
This conflict isn't about the right of an Arab state to exist. Never has been. That ship sailed so many times, stop pretending like it never happened. The entire conflict is about Israel's right as a state to exist. Neither the Palestinian Arabs nor Iranian government recognize that Israel has the right to exist as a state.

If Israel exists, in their feeble world view, then it makes Islam untrue. Islam believes itself to be the final religion, and with Jews holding Jerusalem, it just really grinds their gears because it proves that they aren't right. That's why they literally want to wipe Israel off the map.
Yes it's something like the reverse crusades, isn't it.
The US will never back a policy of genocide. Never.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Yes, the US messes up from time to time, we are humans too. But we aren't "Pax Americana" or whatever that meant. Yes, we are an empire in the sense that we have colonies and at one point had slaves.
Pax Romana was a period when the Roman Empire declared that the rest of the world isn't allowed to fight or they would intervene. Huge arrogance and all that considering their empire was more like one city-state with massive numbers of vassal city-states. Pretty much what you are doing now apart from the city-states.
But guess what? One of those similarities ended 150 years ago.
Ooh er, something happened in the past so it doesn't matter.

We don't support forced slavery, or redistribution of people and forces, as did the Romans.

We didn't institutionalize torture, rape, and murdering of non-combatants as a military policy - as did the Romans.

We aren't Pagans - we are 75% or so Judeo/Christians. Mostly believers in One God.

We didn't try to wipe an entire people off the face of the planet, multiple times, including destroying even the land itself - as did the Romans.


The Romans did and so did you. You no longer do and neither do the Romans

So what are the actual numbers of rapes and torture of combatants. Just trying to get the proper picture here.

There is a reason why the Vatican is in the city of Rome

Oh so if the Japanese hadn't cried uncle you would have just let them be?

The US isn't a nightmare. It's a dream. One that millions of people died for who had seen what happens when the crazy few have the power.
A dream that people die for is a nightmare.
What makes this whole thing work is Power is derived from We the People. So the US Government is really the people of the US. This is why I always look at my conservative brothers strangely when they say they want to "drown Government in the bathtub." Why would we want Anarchy, let alone drown ourselves in a bathtub?
De facto is not de jure.
You see, not every idea is a good idea.
But for some reason only USA gets away with bad ones.
Allowing Iran to gain nuclear capabilities, which I'm glad you don't even deny because it's self evident that their true intent in trying to purchase Uranium and long range missiles, is a bad idea. A really, really bad idea.
Not sure it's good for you to have nuclear weapons. After all you actually used them.

Just to beat that dead high horse of yours:p

Sodas
06-24-2014, 07:09 AM
If you take a life, you are a killer. Your motives, the circumstances and your actions afterwards may prove that you aren't evil, but killer you will be.

Spare me the moral relativism lecture on morality.

Killing can be moral in self defense. You aren't a killer if you defend yourself, or your loved ones, from someone trying to kill them or yourself.

The Torah, Old Testament says, read in the original ancient Hebrew,

Thou shalt not MURDER. - Exodus 20:13

Compounding that with the ridiculous notion that you should be ashamed of yourself when you defend yourself, is naive.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It's a terrible event, and I don't like that lives were lost, but it was a war they declared on the US (Pearl Harbor) and guess what.... Japan and the Japanese are still there.

No "final solutions"

Ooh er, something happened in the past so it doesn't matter.

The past always matters.

It's just in the context of the comparison, it doesn't work. The US is not the Roman Republic.

Nazbaque
06-24-2014, 07:58 AM
Spare me the moral relativism lecture on morality.

Killing can be moral in self defense. You aren't a killer if you defend yourself, or your loved ones, from someone trying to kill them or yourself.

The Torah, Old Testament says, read in the original ancient Hebrew,

Thou shalt not MURDER. - Exodus 20:13

Compounding that with the ridiculous notion that you should be ashamed of yourself when you defend yourself, is naive.
Oh it's quite the opposite of naïve. Naïve is thinking that motives make everything okay. And don't quote holy books to me, I hold myself to higher moral standards than that god of yours.
It's a terrible event, and I don't like that lives were lost, but it was a war they declared on the US (Pearl Harbor) and guess what.... Japan and the Japanese are still there.

No "final solutions"
And if they hadn't surrendered?
The past always matters.

It's just in the context of the comparison, it doesn't work. The US is not the Roman Republic.
You claimed that a part of your past didn't matter yet you forced the whole Roman history into the argument. I merely correct your logic. And while you are indeed not the Romans there are similarities. Especially in your arrogant nature as a people.

Kimon
06-24-2014, 08:28 AM
You claimed that a part of your past didn't matter yet you forced the whole Roman history into the argument. I merely correct your logic. And while you are indeed not the Romans there are similarities. Especially in your arrogant nature as a people.

It's possible that he knows that I'm a Latin teacher and is just trying to piss me off by egregiously misrepresenting Roman policy. But that might be giving him too much credit.

Terez
06-24-2014, 08:37 AM
I agree.

One might think Robert Jordan did too. After all, the Age of Legends and the War of Power is much a take on a time when people know war no more and are unable to defend themselves.
That wasn't exactly what happened, though. It wasn't that they forgot how to make war and then some martial force descended on them and made them rue forgetting. Rather evil came into the world, not as a martial force but as a few independent actors reporting to Shayol Ghul and a burgeoning evil in the hearts of men. Both sides relearned the art of war together, and many of the Shadow's best generals started out as generals for the Light.

Sodas
06-24-2014, 03:28 PM
And don't quote holy books to me, I hold myself to higher moral standards than that god of yours.

Good for you.

The rest of us Jews and Christians have a clearly established guide to morality.

Please, do tell me, is this your own religion of one or are you part of a larger faith?

And, for such an Enlightended individual, what makes your "higher moral standards" good?

I'm sure you remember Plato's Euthyphro.

To the question what makes the laws of moral life true, there are three answers: God, logic, and nothing.

What is your answer?

You claimed that a part of your past didn't matter yet you forced the whole Roman history into the argument.

I never claimed any of our history doesn't matter. I said slavery ended 150 years ago. People change. We no longer allow for that to be a fact of American life. No one wants it to come back either, any time soon.

So no, we are not the Roman Republic. If we are "arrogant" that's stupid. Every Empire in the history of the world has been arrogant. I say it again. We do not plan genocide, rape, murder for our subjects. We are not trying to wipe threatening religions off the face of the planet, like the Romans did.

It's a terrible comparison.

And while you are indeed not the Romans there are similarities.

Roman Republic is the phrase Dav used.


Spare me the "i'm correcting" you or "you used the whole thing" ... that's not what I take issue with.

Roman Republic was used because we are a Republic, not ruled by a single fascist dictator. The rest of Roman history doesn't matter in this context because it doesn't apply.

And guess what, the Roman Republic ended before Jesus was born.

That's why I distinctly mentioned the history of Roman to the Christian days, because during the Roman Republic, it was a Pagan state.

The whole "why is the vatican in italy" is laughable in the context of this argument.

And if they hadn't surrendered?

Can't change history. It happened. They surrendered.

It's like asking, if the Giants didn't beat the 18-0 Patriots, who'd be the greatest team ever? Too bad, it happened. Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. That question is no longer relevant.

fdsaf3
06-24-2014, 04:46 PM
Sodas - if I'm reading the few threads on these boards correctly, you are newly returned from a prolonged absence here. My suggestion would be to take a chill pill.

It's weird. People who tend to stick around and come back to this place all have the same argumentative style which is characterized by what I refer to as "Theoryland internet yelling". Clearly it isn't limited to people; must be in the water somewhere.

Anyway.

If you want my opinion, people need to get over the vague and existential threat that someone, somewhere out there wants to kill them*. While true in some sense, that mentality belies the reality that the odds of any of us being killed in some sort of terrorist attack are essentially nil. War and fear mongers beat the drums of war based on these vague threats, and they prey upon the irrational fear people have of people with a different world view. It's sad.

You can't use 9/11 as an example of anything. If nothing else, 9/11 is the quintessential example of a "Black Swan" event: infinitely unlikely to occur, but when it did it produced massive ripples in the sociopolitical order throughout the world. In my view, prudent foreign policy is based on accurate and realistic risk analysis.

Anyway, these are just my two cents. Take them or leave them. I'm a small voice in this echo chamber.

edit:

*: applies primarily if you're American (which I think a good chunk of us are)

Sodas
06-24-2014, 04:48 PM
That wasn't exactly what happened, though. It wasn't that they forgot how to make war....

Well, clearly, they forgot. Just to reassert that point. The point is that they forgot their own history, like a perfect Liberal state, and that got them into trouble. No guns. No war. No Roman torture and rape games. They forgot everything that got them to that point.

TITLE: The World of Robert Jordan's the Wheel of Time

CHAPTER: The Wheel and the Pattern

"There was a time, before the Breaking of the World, when men and women wielded the One Power side by side with no fear of any taint on saidin. In this time there were no wars – even the word for war was lost, known only to scholars – and all manner of wonders were commonplace. This age is now known as the Age of Legends."

TITLE: The World of Robert Jordan's the Wheel of Time
CHAPTER: The Wheel and the Pattern
Fancloaks, made of fancloth, are one of the finest examples of modern practicality deriving from ancient fashion. Designed to cover the wearer from head to foot, these cloaks create an almost perfect camouflage. Because of the difficulty in obtaining fancloth today, it is exclusively reserved for use by the warders of the Aes Sedai. It is believed to be manufactured in the White Tower by use of a ter'angreal. Without economic or survival motivations, conflicts rarely escalated beyond argument, usually solved through mediation. As a result, the concept of war did not exist. At least not until the very end of the Age of Legends.

And then, the Age of Legends unraveled.

TITLE: The World of Robert Jordan's the Wheel of Time
CHAPTER: The Wheel and the Pattern
Up to this time, the denizens of the world had only to deal with the evil within themselves. If motivations for war and hate were removed, then so were the resultant activities. The bore changed all of that. Like a small finger hole in a prison wall, the bore was not large enough to allow the Dark One’s escape, but it was large enough to allow him to touch the world. His touch subtly altered everything that came with its influence. All the base motivations and emotional problems of mankind were enhanced and manipulated, enlarging envy, greed, and anger despite lack of any true motivating factors. All those dissatisfied with their lot in life felt that dissatisfaction intensify. Thievery, assault, murder and even wars began to appear with increasing frequency.

the Age of Legend's descended into Roman like madness and disgusting behavior.

TITLE: The World of Robert Jordan's the Wheel of Time
CHAPTER: The Wheel and the Pattern
The ranks of those sympathetic to the Dark sowed plots and counterplots into the upheavals already plaguing society. It was during this time that such brutal sports as sha’je dueling came briefly into vogue. Sha’je duels, held at Qual, involved the use of left and right hand daggers, called respectively osan’gar and aran’gar, tipped with slow poison. There was rarely a clear winner, since both participants usually succumbed to either blade or poison. Yet there were worse. In some parts of the world, in the years immediately preceding the final collapse into war, murder, rape and even torture became regular parts of many spectator sports.

I'm sure all our Roman culture experts will agree that the Romans privately enjoyed rape and torture as sport, specifically.


Second part,

and then some martial force descended on them and made them rue forgetting.

building a straw man....

unable to defend themselves.

Where did you get "martial force" from?

I didn't say that, but if you want, the Dark One is still a "martial force".

Martial :

"of or appropriate to war; warlike."

Seems to fit the Dark One.

The Dark One is certainly an outside conscience with some physical component that was unleashed upon the World, which could be defended against. That's a "force." So it fits my criteria.

If the Age of Legends had remembered the Dark One from past turnings of the Wheel/the Bible, or evil destruction and genocide (Mercedes Benz symbol in Museum from apparently the Age just before the Age of Legends) or even Rome, then maybe they wouldn't have become such a bunch of Nerfgun diplomats, to steal the phrase. :D

TITLE: The World of Robert Jordan's the Wheel of Time
CHAPTER: The Wheel and the Pattern
Fearsome constructs, creatures out of nightmare, and weapons of evil were unleashed on an ill-prepared population. Under the onslaught of the dark forces, the defenders were forced to turn their technology to the making of the weapons of war. Jo-cars were armored and fitted with weapons, hoverflies were altered into deadly flying machines capable of striking from the sky. Shocklances and other tools of long-distance destruction were built along with suitable body armor. Fancloth, formerly used for fashion, became the material for camouflage battle capes and proved invaluable on the battlefield.

Sounds like they may have rued the day they stored away all the books about war, genocide, Rome, Nazi Germany, the Devil, etc.


Perhaps this is why we have yet to see a WoT movie/series, and see GRRM pagan worlds on TV, is because WoT is too conservative, and too pro-Judeo-Christian. After all, the 3rd Age recognizes for a fact that there is One Creator. It's assumed. Water is wet. The Creator created the World of the Wheel of Time and trapped the Dark One in his prison. WoT is a Judeo-Christian world view in essence.

How would liberals/Islamic fascists react to learn that the main protagonist is named... Ishamael. One letter away from Ishmael.

A man who is the arch-enemy to the Dragon, a character based in both Arthurian and Judeo-Christian lore.

Add that to the fact that Ishamael is never trapped in the Wheel like the other Forsaken, and corrupts a man named, Artur Paendrag Tanreall. Implying he is always around, corrupting Christian legends.

*whistles*

Nazbaque
06-24-2014, 05:02 PM
Sodas, your god does not follow his own rules. The Old Testament is full of examples. Your god is my moral inferior. Thus you would do better following my rules. I am a better person than your god and it is not all that hard.

Sodas
06-24-2014, 05:09 PM
Sodas, your god does not follow his own rules. The Old Testament is full of examples.

Give me one.

Nazbaque
06-24-2014, 05:12 PM
Thou shalt not kill, yet what does he do to the sodomites. Why is your god allowed to kill?

eht slat meit
06-24-2014, 05:22 PM
Iran has good reason not to trust us...

I had to look up the word "rapprochement" since I can't recall the last time I've seen it in a book, let alone normal conversation. When I did, I had to laugh. The word *almost* fits, it really does. Until you see "an establishment or resumption of *harmonious* relations".

We don't have a "harmonious" relationship with our best allies, and you seriously believe that Iran would ever rise to the level of ally, let alone a harmonious relationship with us just from an apology and a more truculent tone? That sets things in the realm of pure fantasy, man.

The idea that we can soft-pressure (much less hard pressure) a reconciliation with Israel is even more laughable. Sadly, pathetically even, peace between Israel will likely never come until a> Israel submits to middle-eastern demands for cultural and physical mass suicide or b> Israel committs genocide against every last middle eastern nation or c> a multi-century period of stagnation and secular/social apathy where anyone that remembers why they hated each other is dead of old age along with their children and grandchildren..

It ain't going away. These people hate each other, and that hate is not matched by any normal abstract grasp of "hatred" that people in our countries are capable of grasping, because it's terribly far outside our experience. Our lesser hatreds have never been wrapped up in centuries of cultural warfare, religious intolerance, multiple forms of genocide and atrocities, and the most basic NEED for survival - then fanned to fever pitch.

Pretending WE can make it happen is an asinine game for politicians, and some aren't even good at maintaining that illusion. Every effort at true and lasting peace will be stonewalled on one excuse or another

eht slat meit
06-24-2014, 05:23 PM
Thou shalt not kill, yet what does he do to the sodomites. Why is your god allowed to kill?

For the same reason we have rules against murder, but the government is allowed to slaughter people with troops or drones. Special exceptions for special people.

"Special" as in short bus.

Sodas
06-24-2014, 05:24 PM
Thou shalt not kill,

I just quoted his rule.

Thou shalt not murder.

Being a moral relativist unlearned in the Old Testament makes you a fool to try to quote the Torah.

Killing is ok, in self defense, or if you need to put a repeat rapist out of his misery. See the Sanhedrin tribunals during the early Kings period.

yet what does he do to the sodomites. Why is your god allowed to kill?

Glad you asked.

The reason G-D destroyed Sodom is because they attempted rape of Lot's visitors, doesn't matter that they were Angels sent by the Lord, which would have violated the Mid-East's high code of hospitality (19:9).

You know, the part where Arabs and Jews alike welcome and protect guests instead of raping them.

Nothing inconsistent with his own Laws.

Sodas
06-24-2014, 05:28 PM
For the same reason we have rules against murder, but the government is allowed to slaughter people with troops or drones. Special exceptions for special people.

"Special" as in short bus.

That brings up another good point.

If you can't kill, why have troops at all? Why not just join the Way of the Leaf?

eht slat meit
06-24-2014, 05:35 PM
That brings up another good point.

If you can't kill, why have troops at all? Why not just join the Way of the Leaf?

Oh, I probably should have clarified, because I was having that EXACT same thought.

I consider Nazbaque's borderline Way of the Leaf thinking to be padded room "special" not functional "short bus". I'm still hoping I've missed some critical paragraph in Memory of Light where Jordan or Sanderson terminated with balefire every last one of those goddamn idiot Tinkers. People who are born to be corpses and victims offer nothing to the world around them.

Kimon
06-24-2014, 05:39 PM
I had to look up the word "rapprochement" since I can't recall the last time I've seen it in a book, let alone normal conversation. When I did, I had to laugh. The word *almost* fits, it really does. Until you see "an establishment or resumption of *harmonious* relations".

We don't have a "harmonious" relationship with our best allies, and you seriously believe that Iran would ever rise to the level of ally, let alone a harmonious relationship with us just from an apology and a more truculent tone? That sets things in the realm of pure fantasy, man.



Sorry, I figured that rapprochement was one of those French words that everyone knew. It just means reconciliation, but you can just think of it literally as a re-approachment, so the French is pretty straightforward. As for requiring a prior state of harmony, you can reconcile with an enemy with whom you didn't have a perfectly harmonious prior relationship. Whether our relations with the Shah (or contrarily with pre-Mossadegh Iran) were really harmonious would seem to pedantic. They were better, got worse, and could get better than they are now - hence a rappochement. Whether it could be achieved is another matter altogether, but we could both gain from such a reconciliation.

eht slat meit
06-24-2014, 05:49 PM
They were better, got worse, and could get better than they are now - hence a rappochement. Whether it could be achieved is another matter altogether, but we could both gain from such a reconciliation.

Correct me if I'm hazy on my timeline, but our hostile relations with them go on about 60 years, which as a general rule is probably before most normal (Alaskan Ted whatsisname is not normal) politicians were old enough to vote, much less remember *having* a positive relationship with them.

Looking at America as a pure abstract, you could buy into that, but there's so much negative history between all living parties, to the point that any working relationship or apology is going to be seen as suspect, and probably an opportunity to infiltrate and spy. Relationships like that are built over a lifetime, not over "hey guys, we're sorry we were jerks".

Sodas
06-24-2014, 06:04 PM
Oh, I probably should have clarified, because I was having that EXACT same thought.

I consider Nazbaque's borderline Way of the Leaf thinking to be padded room "special" not functional "short bus". I'm still hoping I've missed some critical paragraph in Memory of Light where Jordan or Sanderson terminated with balefire every last one of those goddamn idiot Tinkers. People who are born to be corpses and victims offer nothing to the world around them.

No need to clarify. :) I was merely trying to say, I agreed with that comment completely. Thank you for bringing it up.

Here is how it relates to WoT.

The Way of the Leaf in WoT after the Tuatha'an is interesting in a numerical way.

"The remaining group of Aiel themselves split when four members of their group killed in self-defense while rescuing two daughters of their group who were taken by raiders. One member of the group, Lewin, grabbed a spear while one of the raiders was attacking him and ultimately killed the raider in self-defense. When they returned to camp and the others found out that Lewin had killed a raider, they told the group members to hide their faces and that they were no longer Aiel because they had broken the Covenant and killed, even though they still refused to use a sword. Over time, more and more Aiel joined those who would kill in self-defense, leaving only the Jenn Aiel to hold to the Way of the Leaf."

So by the time we reach the time period in the books, the Aiel have become 12 separate tribes that don't follow the Way of the Leaf, but a belief in self-defense even if it means violence and killing.

Now clearly, the Aiel aren't evil. :D

Nazbaque
06-24-2014, 06:34 PM
The reason G-D destroyed Sodom is because they attempted rape of Lot's visitors, doesn't matter that they were Angels sent by the Lord, which would have violated the Mid-East's high code of hospitality (19:9).

You know, the part where Arabs and Jews alike welcome and protect guests instead of raping them.

Nothing inconsistent with his own Laws.
Actually god had already planned to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for being sinful. It was because of Abram's protests that Lot and his family were to be saved at all.

And rape? Isn't that what god did to Jesus' mother? Didn't even have the decency to marry her.

I repeat: there is nothing that makes it okay to kill someone. Sometimes there is no better choice, but even then you must show remorse.
People who are born to be corpses and victims offer nothing to the world around them.
Everyone is born to be a corpse. Everyone is eventually going to die. And even as we live we must feed on dead creatures be they plants or animals.

There is only one thing that makes it worth trying to live at all. Beauty.

Beauty is the opposite of horror. It makes you feel better about being alive.

Remorseless killing stains the soul making it ugly. Thus every war, every death penalty and every vengeful act of 'self-defence' makes the world an uglier place.

Yet there are people who create beauty. Stories, paintings, sculptures, music. The true masterpieces among these can reach your very soul and give it a moment of true peace.

Kimon
06-24-2014, 06:51 PM
Correct me if I'm hazy on my timeline, but our hostile relations with them go on about 60 years, which as a general rule is probably before most normal (Alaskan Ted whatsisname is not normal) politicians were old enough to vote, much less remember *having* a positive relationship with them.

Looking at America as a pure abstract, you could buy into that, but there's so much negative history between all living parties, to the point that any working relationship or apology is going to be seen as suspect, and probably an opportunity to infiltrate and spy. Relationships like that are built over a lifetime, not over "hey guys, we're sorry we were jerks".

The coup d'etat that toppled Mossadegh (driven by British and American oil interests, mostly BP) occurred in 1953. The coup that toppled the Shah was in '79, The hostage crisis was from '79-'81. The Iran-Iraq War was from '80-'88. There are more events that could be pointed to recently, such as the sanctions, but everything essentially goes back to BP, the CIA, and the foolish decision to topple Mossadegh.

eht slat meit
06-24-2014, 06:56 PM
Everyone is born to be a corpse.

No. People are born to live, then die. Corpse is the destination, not the journey. Leaves don't have a journey. They are born, fall, die. They have no self-preservation extinct. The best you can say for them is that they turn pretty for a week before falling to the ground and making a mess. Animals live more than a leaf does, are far more interesting, and have at least enough self-preservation that - barring the lemming - will not simply fall off a cliff and die.

Everyone is eventually going to die. And even as we live we must feed on dead creatures be they plants or animals.

And yet you pretend that most basic nature doesn't exist and deny it, even though every aspect of your continued life involves killing something.

There is only one thing that makes it worth trying to live at all. Beauty.

That's a rather sad world view. If you value beauty so much, yet care so little about it that you are willing to let it be destroyed and yoruself with it without a thought, you aren't worth much. I've got a camera that has longer shelf life and takes better pictures.

Beauty is the opposite of horror.

Incorrect - the opposite of horror is exaltation. One is a merely a feature, the other a state of being. Ugliness and beauty are features, like size and depth. Horror and exaltation are the heights and lows of states of being.

A leaf will never rise to heights on its own recognizance. It only falls, withers and dies. It will never exalt. It will never feel glory. it can only sit like a lump on a branch and enjoy whatever beauty is there.

Remorseless killing stains the soul making it ugly.

1. I'm not inclined to believe in souls.
2. Every act of continued life is one of killing. According to your personal standard, that makes you a permanently soul-stained from birth to death.


Thus every war, every death penalty and every vengeful act of 'self-defence' makes the world an uglier place.

Strangely enough, so does turning your face as someone you love, or even someone you don't care about dies, for fear you might stain your already black-as-pitch soul further than it already is.

Uglier I'd say, because piss yellow cowardice and the black stain of killing don't complement each other unless you're a fuzzy little creature that makes sweet honey.

Yet there are people who create beauty.

And the reason they can do so safely and in peace is because others have "stained" themselves further so they could. Funny how that works, isn't it? Ironic, really, that the only reason you get to create that beauty is by staining yourself with a permanent cycle of death that comes from killing for consumption, and by virtue of others stained by killing higher life forms so that they can enjoy the comforts of peace-time.

Nazbaque
06-24-2014, 07:43 PM
So you are still ruled by fear. But why do you ignore the word remorse so? That is the key. Remorse is the soap for your soul.

And I believe I ever mentioned the way of the leaf so that metaphor is pretty pointless.

You still keep guessing and assuming meanings that I didn't intend. You should ask more questions.

Soul, core, your inner self. The part of you that calls you "me". I refer to it as a soul because I like the word.

And when I speak of beauty I mean the inner kind. Beauty seen with the mind, not the eyes.

That's the trouble with people like you. You are so damn shallow with your thinking. When you think at all that is and aren't just reacting and going with your emotions. You just don't have the self discipline for wisdom.

Terez
06-24-2014, 08:08 PM
Well, clearly, they forgot.
I didn't say they didn't. You took my quote out of context....for what reason?

Just to reassert that point. The point is that they forgot their own history, like a perfect Liberal state, and that got them into trouble.
It did not. The side of evil was no more prepared to make war than the side of good. Like I said. They both had to learn it again.

Sodas
06-24-2014, 08:14 PM
Actually god had already planned to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for being sinful.

I'm glad you, the non-believer, knows so much about Torah as to gleam that wonderful bit of propaganda. No one knows G-D's plan, not the Jews, not the Torah.

It could have been G-D's plan to talk with Abraham. After all, G-D is assumed "all knowing" in the Greek sense. He should known Abraham would come to him and barter for Lot's life because Lot protected the visitors.

And rape? Isn't that what god did to Jesus' mother? Didn't even have the decency to marry her.

First off, I'm Jewish. So I don't believe in the literal translation of the Bible, New or Old. Parts of the Nazarene Gospel were put in to quench Pagan/Greek thirst for divine omens. The virgin birth was common in Ancient mythology. Zeus alone had half a dozen half-mortal sons.

Here are some others
http://www.lawofattractiongps.com/living-law-of-attraction/not-just-jesus-other-virgin-births/#axzz35bllUhDB

Horus, Egyptian God (3000 years before Jesus)
Krishna.
Buddha.
Osiris
Mithra

It was because of needing to appeal to a Pagan world, that Paul allowed the Nazarenes to adopt Greek/Pagan concepts to prove their legitimacy as a religion.

eht slat meit
06-24-2014, 08:26 PM
So you are still ruled by fear. But why do you ignore the word remorse so? That is the key. Remorse is the soap for your soul.

Because some dead are unworthy of remorse. Hitler. Child rapists. Serial killers. Mass murderers, the list goes on, and those are only the most obvious.

And I believe I ever mentioned the way of theleaf so that metaphor is pretty pointless.

Fair enough.

Soul, core, your inner self. The part of you that calls you "me". I refer to it as a soul because I like the word.

Okay, that works. The part of me that constitutes me recognizes that some lives are worth more than others, such as the life of a child over the life of a person that would kill that child. While I might hestitate to take a life where unnecessary, I would NOT feel a moment's remorse for that monster's death.

And when I speak of beauty I mean the inner kind. Beauty seen with the mind, not the eyes.

And there are those who hold such beauty as only worthy of destruction. Is it unworthy of defending?

That's the trouble with people like you. You are so damn shallow with your thinking. When you think at all that is and aren't just reacting and going with your emotions. You just don't have the self discipline for wisdom.

Emotion is part of what makes me... me. My soul, my spirit, or whatever you want to call it. Arrogance and lack of wisdom is clearly what makes you you as well. I see you asking no questions, only making pronunciations, the same as myself.

Clearly we have differing world views, and no respect for what we perceive to be each other's.

Nazbaque
06-25-2014, 02:51 AM
I'm glad you, the non-believer, knows so much about Torah as to gleam that wonderful bit of propaganda. No one knows G-D's plan, not the Jews, not the Torah.

It could have been G-D's plan to talk with Abraham. After all, G-D is assumed "all knowing" in the Greek sense. He should known Abraham would come to him and barter for Lot's life because Lot protected the visitors.
Or it could just be that your god is an asshole.
First off, I'm Jewish. So I don't believe in the literal translation of the Bible, New or Old. Parts of the Nazarene Gospel were put in to quench Pagan/Greek thirst for divine omens. The virgin birth was common in Ancient mythology. Zeus alone had half a dozen half-mortal sons.
So everything in those holy books is questionable? Well then perhaps I shouldn't speak of "your god" as I have been. So what do you believe about your god? What kind of a person is he?
Because some dead are unworthy of remorse. Hitler. Child rapists. Serial killers. Mass murderers, the list goes on, and those are only the most obvious.
And every one of them was once an innocent little baby. What happened to them that turned them into such monsters? Was it just that no one taught them to be better or was the world so unkind to them that they stopped caring?

Show remorse for what had to be done. That is ultimately what truly makes you better than they were. Otherwise you just took a step towards becoming one of them.
Fair enough.
Cheers.
Okay, that works. The part of me that constitutes me recognizes that some lives are worth more than others, such as the life of a child over the life of a person that would kill that child. While I might hestitate to take a life where unnecessary, I would NOT feel a moment's remorse for that monster's death.
And then what will your life be worth?
And there are those who hold such beauty as only worthy of destruction. Is it unworthy of defending?
It isn't, but in order for it to remain beautiful you must keep washing away the blood that was spilled in its defence.
Emotion is part of what makes me... me. My soul, my spirit, or whatever you want to call it. Arrogance and lack of wisdom is clearly what makes you you as well. I see you asking no questions, only making pronunciations, the same as myself.
Really? That's odd because I question myself all the time. I keep answering myself too as I'm usually the only one who listens. I thought it showed.

Oh well back to the point. Indeed emotion is a part of you as a person and I don't advocate denying it. Just don't let it be your master. Let cold reason have its say as well, then choose your actions.
Clearly we have differing world views, and no respect for what we perceive to be each other's.
So far it seems to me that the most fundamental difference is that I keep improving my own. I constantly challenge my own opinions. Every time I find some details that need correcting and so I keep refining myself. That is how one achieves wisdom.

Look, the basic idea behind your words is that sometimes you have to fight fire with fire at least to a degree. I don't disagree with that notion except perhaps what that degree is. But afterwards you have to put out those fires including your own. After defending that child from the monster you need to console the child. Protect them from fear as you just protected them from pain. Show that you are the good guy and not just another monster.

Killing stains the world. Sometimes you need to kill to stop further killing, but that does not make you a good person just not necessarily a bad one. It's the caring, kindness and gentleness that fix things afterwards. Those are what make a truly beautiful person.

Sodas
06-25-2014, 06:30 PM
That wasn't exactly what happened, though. It wasn't that they forgot how to make war and then some martial force descended on them and made them rue forgetting. Rather evil came into the world, not as a martial force but as a few independent actors reporting to Shayol Ghul and a burgeoning evil in the hearts of men. Both sides relearned the art of war together, and many of the Shadow's best generals started out as generals for the Light.

Well, clearly, they forgot. Just to reassert that point. The point is that they forgot their own history, like a perfect Liberal state, and that got them into trouble. No guns. No war. No Roman torture and rape games. They forgot everything that got them to that point.

...

Where did you get "martial force" from?

I didn't say that, but if you want, the Dark One is still a "martial force".

Martial :

"of or appropriate to war; warlike."

Seems to fit the Dark One.

The Dark One is certainly an outside conscience with some physical component that was unleashed upon the World, which could be defended against. That's a "force." So it fits my criteria.

If the Age of Legends had remembered the Dark One from past turnings of the Wheel/the Bible, or evil destruction and genocide (Mercedes Benz symbol in Museum from apparently the Age just before the Age of Legends) or even Rome, then maybe they wouldn't have become such a bunch of Nerfgun diplomats, to steal the phrase.

I didn't say they didn't.

You said evil came into the World, but not as a martial force.

I was pointing out you were wrong in your dismissal of the Dark One in your terms.

If we can't see the Dark One as an outside, martial force who invades the world, then I'm not sure we can discuss the following issues. I don't see anything else in your post regarding this, so I'm just going to assume you concede the point, since you moved onto the deeper concern, preparation.

It did not. The side of evil was no more prepared to make war than the side of good. Like I said. They both had to learn it again.

It's not about just preparing for war. It's preparing for evil.

You will know them by their fruits - Matthew 7:16

Like I mentioned in my previous post, knowledge of the Devil (Dark One) and the Bible, would have given the Good the advantage of thousands of years of knowledge and history in dealing with evil.

Good needs to prepare to defend itself against evil.
Evil doesn't need to prepare to defend itself against good.

So your entire counter-argument, is a false equivalency.

My statement, in typical historic fashion, concerned the 3 C's of history.

Cause. Course. Consequence.

These link into an endless chain of events, with consequences becoming the next generation of cause.

I'll give you an example in WoT.


The End of the 1st Age (Age before Age of Legends)

Cause

Discovery of the One Power

Course

The 1st Age, from the point of view of the books, is considered our Age. Our Age does not have any form of the One Power as a provable force or power that we could scientifically test. At the end of the 1st Age, the One Power is discovered. Upon discovery of the One Power, the natural inclination of many people would be to adopt worship the One Power (instead of the One God). One could argue that the One Power would be provable in a laboratory experiment, while the One God would still not be able to be tested. The One Power "cult" would therefore be able to claim religious superiority, claiming everyone of the old religions to be living in an outdated world.

The general populace wouldn't argue, since they would see real Works being performed by Channelers. Why need Priests to pray for healing, when Channeling can nearly save one from death?

Consequence

And so, all prior religions would fall away, leaving only the One Power religion and the secular "darwinian" world.


To test this theory, we find the Angreal of Robert Jordan himself, posing much like Buddha would. It only stands to reason that early, 1st Age channelers who worshiped the One Power would have created an Angreal in tribute to the "discoverer" of channeling.


Which brings us to the next part, what happened to this religious cult of the One Power, why did they disappear?

Cause.

The religious cult turned fascist

Course.

Like many religions and secular societies, they begin to weed out those that don't conform. So they more than likely turned fascist.

Examples from history:


The Spartans. While 300 makes them seem noble, they killed their young who weren't beautiful enough. Cliff lip, dead. Their law - outward beauty.

The Romans. Tried to kill off the Jews, Nazarenes, and the later Christian movements because the belief in One God threatened their Pagan world.

The Spanish. Killed off any Christians or Jew's pretending to be Christians that weren't Catholic enough. This event is known as the Spanish Inquisition.

The Russians. Secular atheist society that wiped out any religious people, a threat to their secular society.

The Nazi's. Secular society that created their own pseudo-religion based in Darwinian thought. Their concept was beauty, external and internal, must be allowed to evolve the Aryan race with the extermination of any "lessor" race, including the Jews, Gypsies, anyone who didn't convert to Goebbel's religion of Nazism, etc.


History repeats, over and over again. People fight back against fascist regimes. I would believe the secular forces, the non-One Power cultists, ended up waging a war against the cult.

The cult lost, and was subject to the reforms of the Secular society. Hence, we get the Aes Sedai, servants of all. A name that reflects them being forced to submit to the greater will. Which means, no more religion at all. Secular society wins. Game over for "organized" religion.

Consequence

The secular society erased all memory of the One Power cult (because it was dangerous to them), as well as war, or anything else that offended them or they saw as wrong. Since they had no moral guide, such as the Bible, or the prior cult's rules, they had to make everything up as they went along.

No wars. No guns. No history. No America. No Russia. No Germany. A complete secular utopia! That is the Age of Legends.

And from that, we end up with the final part of my statement.

"they could not defend themselves."

Cause.

The cause of downfall of the Age of Legends was the complete lost of knowledge they had combined with them having turned into a secular society.

Course

The secular society ends up, much in the same way, ruled by moral relativists.

Since moral relativism basis it's rules on whatever it likes at any given time, rules have no moral basis in a higher power. "If there is no God, or Higher Power, then there is no one watching what I do." So in that environment, crazy stuff happens. Limits of rational experimentation are crossed, since their are no morals against scientific experimentation. What we do know about the end of the Age of Legends, is that The Channelers went too far in their scientific pursuit of the One Power, and ended up tampering with the Pattern itself.

Consequence

The Dark One is released.

So as you can see, knowledge + lack of a moral compass lead to the discovery of the Dark One and the fall of the Age of Legends.

Even after the Dark One is released, given enough people believing in the One God, with a Bible in their hand, the side of Light would have less traitor's and a stronger moral resistance to the side of Dark.

If the Age of Legends hadn't lost all it's knowledge and become a secular society full of moral relativists, Good would have been prepared to fight Evil, and may have won - instead of a hail mary stalemate.

Sodas
06-25-2014, 07:49 PM
So everything in those holy books is questionable?

I said literal.

There is an area between "everything is questionable" and knowledge of the sources determining what you take away as true/important.

Well then perhaps I shouldn't speak of "your god" as I have been. So what do you believe about your god? What kind of a person is he?

I appreciate that you recognize that. I'm truly glad we can continue this debate. :)

Ok, so before I start, it's a Greek Hellenist thought to define a deity as a "kind of person" or have human characteristics. Human characteristics imply that they are fundamental in determining what happens. One day they might decided to send waves to shore and destroy the Greek fleet, the other day they may destroy the Persians, based upon that characteristic.

Hashem is Hashem.

Or so, said so Him/Herself,
"I am that I am."

If you must, then Hashem should be known by His/Her core value :

Justice.

Punish the wicked. Don't let people continuously try to rape your guests. Justice, Justice, Justice, shalt thou pursue!

If you have ever seen Justice when she is blind, you will realize that it's Christianity's take on Judiasm.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/413HeK5IWtL._SY300_.jpg

It was a subtle attempt to say Judiasm is Justice, blind to Christ, not to evil.

So, the closest thing to a human characteristic of Hashem that could be said, would be Justice. That's also why it's so interesting that Rand Al'Thor finds the sword, Justice.

But Hashem is more than Justice - Hashem is also the Creator of the Universe, creator of Universal Laws that govern the Universe, guider of the creation of Life, and the origin of our species.

Kimon
06-25-2014, 10:07 PM
Like many religions and secular societies, they begin to weed out those that don't conform. So they more than likely turned fascist.

Examples from history:

[LIST]
The Spartans. While 300 makes them seem noble, they killed their young who weren't beautiful enough. Cliff lip, dead. Their law - outward beauty.



This is a bit of a misrepresentation of the agoge and krypteia. Children were examined for healthiness upon birth, and could be exposed if deemed too weak to survive, but we have examples of children who should have obviously failed such a test who were not exposed. An obvious example of this was one of their greatest kings - Agesilaus II, who was born lame of one foot, but still completed his agoge like any other Spartan youth. The implication is that at Sparta, as throughout the rest of the ancient Greek world, fathers had the right to practice infanticide if they so chose, but were not required to do so by the state. Nor was he likely spared simply because he was the son of one of the two kings, as he was not the eldest son, nor the immediate heir of Archidamus II. He was 45 when his brother Agis II died.

The Romans. Tried to kill off the Jews, Nazarenes, and the later Christian movements because the belief in One God threatened their Pagan world.

Hadrian was not Hitler. Many died when he put down the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and he did forbid entry into Jerusalem for the rest of his reign, but even during the immediate diaspora, Jewish communities continued to flourish throughout Galilee and the Levant. His response was heavy-handed, more so than Titus' after the First Jewish Revolt, but it wasn't genocide, and his punitary policies were reversed by his successor, Antoninus Pius. Likewise, almost the entirety of the persecution of the Christians under the Romans occurred under two emperors. Under Diocletian this started as an attempt to expel Christians from the military, viewing them as dangerous terrorists and enemies of the state. His successor, Galerius expanded the persecution into what we tend to picture. The persecution ended after Galerius, as Licinius and Constantine both converted.

Prior to Diocletian we hear very little about Christianity. They are first mentioned by Tacitus in reference to the Great Fire and Nero. Tacitus makes clear that little was known of them, and that no one believed Nero's accusation. We hear of them again in the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan, where Trajan instructed Pliny to avoid taking any action. It was clear that Trajan had no clue who they were, and that Pliny just found them to be a nuisance, not a threat to the state or the state religion. That had changed by the time of Galerius, but there they were viewed mostly as terrorists and anarchists. Nonetheless, with the exception of Galerius, Rome's policy towards Christianity was essentially one of indifference with isolated incidents where some zealot pissed off a local magistrate enough that he let the fool "martyr" himself. The Romans were far more tolerant of religions than most empires, certainly more tolerant than the Christians who came after them.

Sodas
06-25-2014, 11:28 PM
Children were examined for healthiness upon birth, and could be exposed if deemed too weak to survive, but we have examples of children who should have obviously failed such a test who were not exposed. An obvious example of this was one of their greatest kings - Agesilaus II, who was born lame of one foot, but still completed his agoge like any other Spartan youth.

I'm sorry, maybe I missed the part where having a lame foot makes you unhealthy or imperfect in form (still beautiful).

blah blah blah .... don't mind what the Romans did.... nothing to see here ....

I'm paraphrasing of course, because none of that has anything to do with the point.

Kimon
06-26-2014, 01:16 AM
I'm sorry, maybe I missed the part where having a lame foot makes you unhealthy or imperfect in form (still beautiful).



The inspection had nothing to do with beauty, it was about healthiness. He had a developmental defect in one of his legs that would have called into question his fitness to be a soldier, yet he was not "exposed". Apparently his mother was more accepting than was Hera, since that was the malady for which Hera rejected Hephaestus.


blah blah blah .... don't mind what the Romans did.... nothing to see here ....

I'll take this as an tacit admission that your vitriolic invective was either ignorance or hyperbole.

Sodas
06-26-2014, 01:29 AM
I'll take this as an tacit admission that your vitriolic invective was either ignorance or hyperbole.

You take it however you want. You missed the point completely.

The Romans tried to wiped out the Jews inside the state of Judea. That is Genocide. They killed men, women and children. And that was just one war. Only some people were spared.

What you forgot to mention, oh professor, is that they also built a temple to Jupiter upon the ruins of the Jewish holy temple. They didn't allow any Jew to visit and tried to convert everyone to Paganism.

Then, when that didn't work, they tried Genocide, again. This time, complete distruction of the Land of Israel. The forests of Israel? Burned to the ground. Fields, scorched. Everyone dead. They figured, the Jews outside Judea would never recover.

Hyperbole, I think not.

It doesn't matter, Rome was just one point in human history and illustrates that they did it because they hated the Jews, and later the Christians (to which they threw to the Lions) for not conforming.

You just excused the entire course of Roman history.

The idea that people aren't out to get others, or people can't be hurt for no good reason, is not true. Just right now, Israel is currently searching for 3 Israeli teenagers kidnapped by Hamas. One of which, is an American citizen. This after Hamas sent rockets towards Israel, only to kill it's own people (including a little girl).

Here are some other "wonderful" moments in secularism and the belief that no one else could possibly be after you since everything is so perfect.

A Shockingly Happy Picture by Excess Deaths of just the last century
First World War (1914–18): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
Russian Civil War (1917–22): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
Soviet Union, Stalin’s regime (1924–53): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
Second World War (1937–45): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
Chinese Civil War (1945–49): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong’s
regime (1949–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 million
Tibet (1950 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600,000
Congo Free State (1886–1908): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 million
Mexico (1910–20): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Turkish massacres of Armenians (1915–23): . . . . . 1.5 million
China (1917–28): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800,000
China, Nationalist era (1928–37): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 million
Korean War (1950–53): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
Rwanda and Burundi (1959–95): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
Second Indochina War (1960–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 million
Ethiopia (1962–92): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Nigeria (1966–70): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Bangladesh (1971): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.25 million
Cambodia, Khmer Rouge (1975–78): . . . . . . . . . . . 1.65 million
Mozambique (1975–92): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Afghanistan (1979–2001): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 million
Iran–Iraq War (1980–88): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Sudan (1983 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 million
Kinshasa, Congo (1998 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 million
Philippines Insurgency (1899–1902): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,000
Brazil (1900 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Amazonia (1900–1912): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000
Portuguese colonies (1900–1925): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325,000
French colonies (1900–1940): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
Japanese War (1904–5): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000
German East Africa (1905–7): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,000
Libya (1911–31): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,000
Balkan Wars (1912–13): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,000
Greco–Turkish War (1919–22): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000
Spanish Civil War (1936–39): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365,000
Franco Regime (1939–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000
Abyssinian Conquest (1935–41): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Finnish War (1939–40): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Greek Civil War (1943–49): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158,000
Yugoslavia, Tito’s regime (1944–80): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
First Indochina War (1945–54): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Colombia (1946–58): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
India (1947): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Romania (1948–89): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Burma/Myanmar (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000
Algeria (1954–62): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537,000
Sudan (1955–72): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Guatemala (1960–96): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
Indonesia (1965–66): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Uganda, Idi Amin’s regime (1972–79): . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Vietnam, postwar Communist regime
(1975 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430,000
Angola (1975–2002): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550,000
East Timor, conquest by Indonesia (1975–99): . . . . . 200,000
Lebanon (1975–90): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Cambodian Civil War (1978–91): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225,000
Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979–2003): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Uganda (1979–86): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Kurdistan (1980s, 1990s): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Liberia (1989–97): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Iraq (1990– ): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–95): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,000
Somalia (1991 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000

Kimon
06-26-2014, 02:27 AM
The Romans tried to wiped out the Jews inside the state of Judea. That is Genocide. They killed men, women and children. And that was just one war. Only some people were spared.



There were still many Jews in Judaea after both the First Jewish Revolt and after Bar Kokhba's. Many died in each struggle, many of those who were taken captive were enslaved. But those that did not take part in the insurrection were not punished, and some who did were not merely spared, but honored. Josephus at first fought against Vespasian, but then gave up the struggle when he viewed it a foolish endeavor. He was made a Roman citizen, was granted lands in Italy and Judaea, and became a tutor of Titus. You could argue that he was a collaborator, but he was far from the only Jewish leader who was spared, as were most of the civilians. Many died in both rebellions, but then people in besieged cities tend to fare poorly when their city falls. But it cannot be called genocide when the vast majority of a populace is left untouched and unmolested by their conquerors.

What you forgot to mention, oh professor, is that they also built a temple to Jupiter upon the ruins of the Jewish holy temple. They didn't allow any Jew to visit and tried to convert everyone to Paganism.

For the Greeks and Romans Zeus=Jupiter=Yahweh, so from their thinking, they were all the same dude, and, of course, Hadrian was understandably irritated with the Jews when he did it. It was intended as a message of the fait accompli. Still stupid and pointlessly inflammatory, which was why Antoninus Pius removed it and reversed the other punitive measures enacted by Hadrian, since he didn't want to face any more insurrections. But neither Hadrian nor Titus ever attempted or wished to carry out the genocide of the Jews or the eradication of their religion. They were punishing a rebellion, not conducting ethnic cleansing.

Nazbaque
06-26-2014, 02:38 AM
I said literal.

There is an area between "everything is questionable" and knowledge of the sources determining what you take away as true/important.



I appreciate that you recognize that. I'm truly glad we can continue this debate. :)

Ok, so before I start, it's a Greek Hellenist thought to define a deity as a "kind of person" or have human characteristics. Human characteristics imply that they are fundamental in determining what happens. One day they might decided to send waves to shore and destroy the Greek fleet, the other day they may destroy the Persians, based upon that characteristic.

Hashem is Hashem.

Or so, said so Him/Herself,
"I am that I am."

If you must, then Hashem should be known by His/Her core value :

Justice.

Punish the wicked. Don't let people continuously try to rape your guests. Justice, Justice, Justice, shalt thou pursue!

If you have ever seen Justice when she is blind, you will realize that it's Christianity's take on Judiasm.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/413HeK5IWtL._SY300_.jpg

It was a subtle attempt to say Judiasm is Justice, blind to Christ, not to evil.

So, the closest thing to a human characteristic of Hashem that could be said, would be Justice. That's also why it's so interesting that Rand Al'Thor finds the sword, Justice.

But Hashem is more than Justice - Hashem is also the Creator of the Universe, creator of Universal Laws that govern the Universe, guider of the creation of Life, and the origin of our species.
Ah so you are the pick and choose type of believer. You see justice? I see mindless revenge. There is a Finnish saying which would translate as "Even a blind chicken occasionally finds grain". It is used to describe a moment when someone unexpectedly gets something right. I think your god has the same relationship with justice.

It may have been a Greek Hellenist idea, but mine is more like the reverse. Why should these characteristics be limited to humans? Ants and bees live and die for their sake of duty to the community. Dogs are proverbially loyal. Every creature has a personality. And for me personalities aren't so much about predicting actions as they are about a place on the spectrum of good and evil.

So what is the personality of your god? You seem to believe that he(?) is a non-person. Justice? More like the ultimate terrorist dictator. But hey so long as we get heaven it's all good right.

Bah. You are a coward grovelling at the feet of a bully hoping that he will spare you if you follow his rules.

Oh well if at least the set of rules you believe in is a good one, society might not suffer from it.

On the other hand based on your posts you are an asshole. So either you are breaking those rules or they aren't that good.

Sodas
06-26-2014, 02:47 AM
Ah so you are the pick and choose type of believer. You see justice? I see mindless revenge. There is a Finnish saying which would translate as "Even a blind chicken occasionally finds grain". It is used to describe a moment when someone unexpectedly gets something right. I think your god has the same relationship with justice.

It may have been a Greek Hellenist idea, but mine is more like the reverse. Why should these characteristics be limited to humans? Ants and bees live and die for their sake of duty to the community. Dogs are proverbially loyal. Every creature has a personality. And for me personalities aren't so much about predicting actions as they are about a place on the spectrum of good and evil.

So what is the personality of your god? You seem to believe that he(?) is a non-person. Justice? More like the ultimate terrorist dictator. But hey so long as we get heaven it's all good right.

Bah. You are a coward grovelling at the feet of a bully hoping that he will spare you if you follow his rules.

Oh well if at least the set of rules you believe in is a good one, society might not suffer from it.

On the other hand based on your posts you are an asshole. So either you are breaking those rules or they aren't that good.

That was a rather insane rant.

:rolleyes:

Nazbaque
06-26-2014, 02:54 AM
That was a rather insane rant.

:rolleyes:

...And your point is?

Sodas
06-26-2014, 02:56 AM
For the Greeks and Romans Zeus=Jupiter=Yahweh, so from their thinking, they were all the same dude, and, of course, Hadrian was understandably irritated with the Jews when he did it. It was intended as a message of the fait accompli. Still stupid and pointlessly inflammatory, which was why Antoninus Pius removed it and reversed the other punitive measures enacted by Hadrian, since he didn't want to face any more insurrections. But neither Hadrian nor Titus ever attempted or wished to carry out the genocide of the Jews or the eradication of their religion. They were punishing a rebellion, not conducting ethnic cleansing.

It doesn't matter if the Romans thought Zeus and Jupiter were the same as Yahweh, it's not. It was done on purpose to convert people.

No point continue to argue this point with someone who purposefully leaves out important details of Roman occupation.

I'll let Abba Eban finish this one for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30Dztgjc0x4

Sodas
06-26-2014, 02:57 AM
...And your point is?

That it was insane rant.

Pretty easy to figure out.

Nazbaque
06-26-2014, 02:59 AM
That it was insane rant.

Pretty easy to figure out.

Still trying to figure out what you're getting at.

Kimon
06-26-2014, 03:07 AM
It doesn't matter if the Romans thought Zeus and Jupiter were the same as Yahweh, it's not. It was done on purpose to convert people.

No point continue to argue this point with someone who purposefully leaves out important details of Roman occupation.

I'll let Abba Eban finish this one for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30Dztgjc0x4

Seriously? That thing was 55 minutes long. Here's a better one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE

Sodas
06-28-2014, 01:10 AM
I felt the post was beyond reasonable, Naz, for the following reasons.

1. You continue to be unable to understand the simple fact that I'm a Jew.

You continue with dumb statements like,
"But hey so long as we get heaven it's all good right." - Naz

Once again, I'm Jewish. Heaven is Zoroastrian concept, not Jewish. We don't believe in Heaven and Hell.

So next time, before you go off on some vapid rant like that, make sure you know who you are talking to.

2. Pick and Choose

That is exactly what you are doing.

You pick and choose what literature has "inner beauty" to believe.

After all, why choose one piece of literature over another? Why not take the Gospel of Luke, or the Koran, or Mein Kamft?

See, childish comments that you made.

3. You walked back the Way of the Leaf comments.

That's on you. First you said violence is never right, and then you walked it back. Just like you walked back the original beauty comment when it made no sense and looked superficial.

4. You have called me, my country and my G-D an asshole.

Good.

It shows that you attack others in a way that you see as the best way to express contempt.

Comparing them to a not so "beautiful" body part.

Like I said, that's so superficial, but if you must, I accept that for me. I enjoy the label.

The asshole has really only one job. To make sure all that feces doesn't back up causing you to burst and explode everywhere. So in a beautiful way, it keeps you alive.

So I accept it, doesn't bother me one bit.

But if you want to keep going on and on about stuff you have proven (see point 1) you have no clue about, or any attempt at real understanding, go ahead. We are clearly done with this conversation due to one party unable to show any ability to follow the discourse, you. (Naz)

Nazbaque
06-28-2014, 06:56 AM
I felt the post was beyond reasonable, Naz, for the following reasons.

1. You continue to be unable to understand the simple fact that I'm a Jew.

You continue with dumb statements like,
"But hey so long as we get heaven it's all good right." - Naz

Once again, I'm Jewish. Heaven is Zoroastrian concept, not Jewish. We don't believe in Heaven and Hell.

So next time, before you go off on some vapid rant like that, make sure you know who you are talking to.
1. Well granted I was going more against Christianity. Wasn't aware that there were that drastic differences. The main point remains however that any creation based religion insists that human beings are important to god. The god being an asshole part turns up in how we have been treated. Yet that is not the really annoying bit.

What they really do is make huge guess and insist that that is the truth and everything, morality, duty, justice, sanity, good and evil they are all based on this guess. They cling to their dogmatic hope and turn their back to understanding why the good parts of their religion are good. They don't have the courage to face the possibility that we are an accident in a world of chaos. They might seek knowledge but they don't seek to understand it. They cowardly turn their back to wisdom. And I don't insist that we are such an accident I'm just able to accept it as another possibility.

I wasn't talking to you as a Jew. I was talking to the person who brushed off Hiroshima and Nagasaki with "Guess what the Japanese are still here" yet insist what the Romans did to Jews was genocide. Now if you had brought up the Carthaginians you might have had a point, but alas you didn't. I see now that being compared to Romans annoyed you as a Jew and not because they were arrogant hedonistic and elitist assholes, once again showing yourself to be shallow in your thinking if you actually were thinking.
2. Pick and Choose

That is exactly what you are doing.

You pick and choose what literature has "inner beauty" to believe.

After all, why choose one piece of literature over another? Why not take the Gospel of Luke, or the Koran, or Mein Kamft?

See, childish comments that you made.
2. That is not what I said. That is not even close to what I believe about beauty. That is not what I do when I come across something beautiful. I don't base my beliefs on my concepts of beauty. Beauty is not my god, it is my ally and companion. Beauty is my friend it helps me cope with the fact that I'm part of a species that can commit such horrors and pretend that it's right. It reminds me that there are good people among the bad ones and not just those who manage not to be harmful. It gives me hope to actually live and not just survive until my time comes.

So next time, before you go off on some vapid rant like that, make sure you know who you are talking to.
3. You walked back the Way of the Leaf comments.

That's on you. First you said violence is never right, and then you walked it back. Just like you walked back the original beauty comment when it made no sense and looked superficial.
3. You are the one who put words in my mouth and connected me to concepts like the Way of the Leaf. Now perhaps I should have gone to more detail, but I really didn't expect you to be that lazy as a thinker.
4. You have called me, my country and my G-D an asshole.

Good.

It shows that you attack others in a way that you see as the best way to express contempt.

Comparing them to a not so "beautiful" body part.

Like I said, that's so superficial, but if you must, I accept that for me. I enjoy the label.

The asshole has really only one job. To make sure all that feces doesn't back up causing you to burst and explode everywhere. So in a beautiful way, it keeps you alive.

So I accept it, doesn't bother me one bit.
4. Fair enough. Let us be more precise. You and your god are sown up assholes. I called your country arrogant which I won't take back, but seeing as you are a lazy thinker I particularly refer to your politics. I don't doubt that some of the actual people can even be considered beautiful.
But if you want to keep going on and on about stuff you have proven (see point 1) you have no clue about, or any attempt at real understanding, go ahead. We are clearly done with this conversation due to one party unable to show any ability to follow the discourse, you. (Naz)
Well now I don't really see how that is a problem. Some of the most fun can be had with every side of the argument behaving like that. I certainly understand you much better than you understand me. I mean you twice went on about my rant being insane. Well duh! The whole board knows that I actually am insane. But insane or not I am occasionally right.

Kimon
06-28-2014, 10:51 AM
I wasn't talking to you as a Jew. I was talking to the person who brushed off Hiroshima and Nagasaki with "Guess what the Japanese are still here" yet insist what the Romans did to Jews was genocide. Now if you had brought up the Carthaginians you might have had a point, but alas you didn't. I see now that being compared to Romans annoyed you as a Jew and not because they were arrogant hedonistic and elitist assholes, once again showing yourself to be shallow in your thinking if you actually were thinking.



Carthage and the Third Punic War is not actually a good example of genocide either. True, the city was sacked and the survivors in the city sold into slavery, but the Romans rebuilt most of the other Punic cities immediately following the war, and made the second greatest Punic city, Utica, the capital of Roman Africa. Moreover, Septimius Severus was of Punic descent, so there was an entire dynasty of emperors of Carthaginian ancestry. Hardly out of the ordinary for the Romans, as most of the emperors after the Flavians were not from Italy. Trajan and Hadrian were from Spain. Antoninus Pius was from Provence. Marcus Aurelius was from Spain. The first four also had some Italian ancestry, but Marcus Aurelius was from a purely Spanish family. This is what made the Romans so different from the empires that preceded it, they didn't just conquer peoples and territories, they made those peoples Roman.

This of course was part of the problem in dealing with the Jews. Their monotheism made them both odd and difficult to include within the tapestry. The Romans recognized this and as such didn't require them to take part in the state religion. Many Jews, like Josephus, could easily accept this dichotomy, but some obviously could not, which was why they so often rose in rebellion. No doubt their success in throwing off the Seleucid yoke made them think they had a similar chance in ridding themselves of the Romans.

I just find it odd that Sodas, while being so critical of what the Romans did, seemingly has no problem with what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians.

eht slat meit
06-28-2014, 10:55 AM
And every one of them was once an innocent little baby. What happened to them that turned them into such monsters? Was it just that no one taught them to be better or was the world so unkind to them that they stopped caring?


I was going to let this drop, because I felt like there's something going on in your head along the usual lines of playing devil's advocate or trolling, or in the worst case scenario, you're part of cult-like religion that makes Christianity's idiocy look mild by comparison, and there's just no point in engaging it.

Then I saw your reply to Sodas in another post about "lazy thinking" and realized that you actually and sincerely believe you are operating on some deeper and more insightful level than the rest of us, and that you believe your arguments aren't complete garbage.

Let me dispel this illusion for you: your arguments have represented some of the most shallow and knee-jerk response thinking possible.

You talk about soul staining and then refer to shat-upon-soul genocidal psychopath Hitler as if he were the equivalent of an innocent and unstained baby, an utterly insane and completely unjustifiable comparison.

Yes, Hitler was a baby once. The difference is that not NOT ONE SINGLE baby is Hitler. You don't know which of them had similar paths to he and didn't turn into a mass-murdering animal. He is not "equally undeserving of death" as a baby, and he is not deserving of remorse, because there is nothing to suggest he is deserving of it.

Raise such comparisons the next time your history book shows you newborns flipping the switch on showers full of Jews, you disgusting pig.

Nazbaque
06-28-2014, 12:21 PM
I was going to let this drop, because I felt like there's something going on in your head along the usual lines of playing devil's advocate or trolling, or in the worst case scenario, you're part of cult-like religion that makes Christianity's idiocy look mild by comparison, and there's just no point in engaging it.

Then I saw your reply to Sodas in another post about "lazy thinking" and realized that you actually and sincerely believe you are operating on some deeper and more insightful level than the rest of us, and that you believe your arguments aren't complete garbage.

Let me dispel this illusion for you: your arguments have represented some of the most shallow and knee-jerk response thinking possible.

You talk about soul staining and then refer to shat-upon-soul genocidal psychopath Hitler as if he were the equivalent of an innocent and unstained baby, an utterly insane and completely unjustifiable comparison.

Yes, Hitler was a baby once. The difference is that not NOT ONE SINGLE baby is Hitler. You don't know which of them had similar paths to he and didn't turn into a mass-murdering animal. He is not "equally undeserving of death" as a baby, and he is not deserving of remorse, because there is nothing to suggest he is deserving of it.

Raise such comparisons the next time your history book shows you newborns flipping the switch on showers full of Jews, you disgusting pig.

And you speak of Hitler as if he was the only guilty person there. Wake up eht! The Nazi party was VOTED into power. The SS was made of zealots who believed all that the man spoke of and the Gestapo was full of even worse psychopaths. Every. Single. One. Was. An. Innocent. Little. Baby. Once.

I believe most of humanity falls closer to that end of the spectrum than the other. Some of them frequent these boards such as you for example and Sodas too. Then there is Sini, Cortar and Southpaw too. You may not be actual monsters as of yet, but you are closer to that end than the other by the image one gets from your posts. But even if you really went off the deep end, I wouldn't wish for you to die just like that.

eht slat meit
06-29-2014, 05:46 PM
And you speak of Hitler as if he was the only guilty person there.

I did no such thing, and the fact that you have to tell the lie that I did says everything we need to know about how much YOUR position is worth standing by itself without the added support of "zomg, ur an idiot that thinks hitler is da only one!"

And I quote me: "ecause some dead are unworthy of remorse. Hitler. Child rapists. Serial killers. Mass murderers, the list goes on, and those are only the most obvious."

I do NOT cite Hitler as the only one, and I am quite aware of how he got his power. He *may* have gotten his power by the vote of average people liek you and me, but he was kept in power by those people allowing themselves to be monsters. In short, they ARE closer to Hitler.

You, I and others are not.

You speak of a sort of spectrum on which we are closest to Hitler. While I agree that such a spectrum of human behavior exists, you have to be an idiot to raise the conjecture that the average human being is closer to Hitler rather than holding the center.

If that were really the truth of humanity, Sodas would currently be in a gas chamber, and you would be out on the campaign stand stating that Der Fuhrer is the equivalent of a baby, and that you like he hold his baby's innocence.


Wake up eht! The Nazi party was VOTED into power. The SS was made of zealots who believed all that the man spoke of and the Gestapo was full of even worse psychopaths. Every. Single. One. Was. An. Innocent. Little. Baby. Once.

And not every. single. baby. was a member of these zealots EVER.

Changing your place on the spectrum doesn't mean you are deserving of sympathy. It means that you found some excuse along the way to justify you being an animal.

I believe most of humanity falls closer to that end of the spectrum than the other. Some of them frequent these boards such as you for example and Sodas too.

So I'm a monster for suggesting that killing Hitler is a good thing, but you're not a monster for rationalizing his acts of mass murder with the fact that he was a baby once?

Again, you are not a deep thinker.

You are a damned fool.

Let us imagine for a second that Hitler had won. In such a world, Sodas and most of the people you've mentioned here would be in the gas chamber, dead.

Meanwhile, you'd be up on the campaign circuit telling us how Hitler's genocide is really no different than a baby's innocence and that those who DARE FUCKING STAND UP AGAINST HIM FOR A MINUTE are the TRUE monsters.

In your dream world, only monsters can survive, and the good can only be corpses.

There is something fundamentally sick and wrong in your brain.

Uno
06-29-2014, 07:50 PM
There is something fundamentally sick and wrong in your brain.

Well, no, probably not. What has happened--in a rather predictable and oft-repeated pattern in threads like this--is that during the course of an extremely meandering and divagating (not to mention heated) discussion, people end up gradually getting prodded into arguing for extreme positions in an effort to defend their original points, to the extent that it gets hard to identify what those original points were. It seems unlikely that anyone here is "sick in the brain," "a disgusting pig," or "a coward grovelling at the feet of a bully," to mention some of the more colourful invectives I noticed.

eht slat meit
06-29-2014, 08:25 PM
Well, no, probably not. What has happened--in a rather predictable and oft-repeated pattern in threads like this--is that during the course of an extremely meandering and divagating (not to mention heated) discussion, people end up gradually getting prodded into arguing for extreme positions in an effort to defend their original points, to the extent that it gets hard to identify what those original points were.

Given that the discussion I was having had absolutely zero opportunity to "meander" unless I was somehow being magically lumped in with some other group that I don't identify with, this discussion literally went directly FROM some sort of neurotic psychobabble about what a God I don't even believe in can do, to comparing Hitler to an innocent baby.

So yes, I do qualify that as "broken thinking" if someone is literally unable to step away from the point they have arrived at in a discussion and immediately instead immerse themselves in some sort of radically insane position that you claim he doesn't even believe.

I realize that you seem to want to let him off the hook, but Nazbaque doesn't appear to be asking for this cop-out and instead seems to be vigorously defending his psychotic belief systems.

And please... don't tell me that people don't actually BELIEVE this kind of nonsense when the raging majority of the planet believes in invisible sky fairies and spaghetti monsters have have ultimate control over every aspect of our fate and therefore should control every aspect of our current existence.

Uno
06-29-2014, 08:36 PM
Given that the discussion I was having had absolutely zero opportunity to "meander" unless I was somehow being magically lumped in with some other group that I don't identify with, this discussion literally went directly FROM some sort of neurotic psychobabble about what a God I don't even believe in can do, to comparing Hitler to an innocent baby.

I strongly suspect that if you and Naz were to explain what you thought your discussion was about, you wouldn't come up with exactly the same answer. The thread started as a shot at Obama, then Naz stepped in with some snide comment about Americans, then there were some rather angry rants about religion, and now it has ended up ... well ... I'm not exactly sure what to call its current stage. I'd say that qualifies as meandering even by Theoryland standards.

The humourous thing about the thread is that Kimon periodically steps in between the the angry shouting people and tries to have a dispassionate and factual discussion of ancient history. The image that comes to mind is of a room full of people throwing bottles at each other and one man standing on a table in the middle of the mayhem trying to hold a lecture on Herodotus.

Terez
06-29-2014, 11:17 PM
The thread started as a shot at Obama, then Naz stepped in with some snide comment about Americans, then there were some rather angry rants about religion, and now it has ended up ... well ... I'm not exactly sure what to call its current stage. I'd say that qualifies as meandering even by Theoryland standards.
Don't forget the WoT discussion!

Also, Kimon is awesome. He has not been around long enough to know Sodas or he might have avoided this one altogether. :)

GonzoTheGreat
06-30-2014, 03:27 AM
The humourous thing about the thread is that Kimon periodically steps in between the the angry shouting people and tries to have a dispassionate and factual discussion of ancient history. The image that comes to mind is of a room full of people throwing bottles at each other and one man standing on a table in the middle of the mayhem trying to hold a lecture on Herodotus.
Of course, technically, the book by Herodotus on the Roman Empire should be classified as science fiction (or maybe prophecy), since he lived before the Romans made any kind of impression on the world at all. But unfortunately, when the Christians burned the Library of Alexandria, they also burned the last copy of this book. If they hadn't, Justinian would have trusted Belisarius more, and then the entire history of Europe would've gone differently.

Nazbaque
07-01-2014, 04:54 PM
I did no such thing, and the fact that you have to tell the lie that I did says everything we need to know about how much YOUR position is worth standing by itself without the added support of "zomg, ur an idiot that thinks hitler is da only one!"

And I quote me: "ecause some dead are unworthy of remorse. Hitler. Child rapists. Serial killers. Mass murderers, the list goes on, and those are only the most obvious."

I do NOT cite Hitler as the only one, and I am quite aware of how he got his power. He *may* have gotten his power by the vote of average people liek you and me, but he was kept in power by those people allowing themselves to be monsters. In short, they ARE closer to Hitler.

You, I and others are not.

You speak of a sort of spectrum on which we are closest to Hitler. While I agree that such a spectrum of human behavior exists, you have to be an idiot to raise the conjecture that the average human being is closer to Hitler rather than holding the center.

If that were really the truth of humanity, Sodas would currently be in a gas chamber, and you would be out on the campaign stand stating that Der Fuhrer is the equivalent of a baby, and that you like he hold his baby's innocence.




And not every. single. baby. was a member of these zealots EVER.

Changing your place on the spectrum doesn't mean you are deserving of sympathy. It means that you found some excuse along the way to justify you being an animal.



So I'm a monster for suggesting that killing Hitler is a good thing, but you're not a monster for rationalizing his acts of mass murder with the fact that he was a baby once?

Again, you are not a deep thinker.

You are a damned fool.

Let us imagine for a second that Hitler had won. In such a world, Sodas and most of the people you've mentioned here would be in the gas chamber, dead.

Meanwhile, you'd be up on the campaign circuit telling us how Hitler's genocide is really no different than a baby's innocence and that those who DARE FUCKING STAND UP AGAINST HIM FOR A MINUTE are the TRUE monsters.

In your dream world, only monsters can survive, and the good can only be corpses.

There is something fundamentally sick and wrong in your brain.

Eht what I am saying is that everyone starts out as a baby. If you want to see people you deem as monsters differently somehow coming out of nowhere 20ish and already complete psychopaths be my guest be an idiot, deny the facts. I don't think anyone is born evil just like that. Not a complete tabula rasa either but very much manipulable. So how do they end up the way they end up? What are the first steps toward the Hitler extreme? Or perhaps I should say the Himler extreme, him being the REALLY big psychopath in that lot.

So what I am trying to get across is that attitude of yours is already taking you towards that end and on average humanity IS closer to it. Or can you perhaps name a person who would balance out Hitler's stain on the history of humanity. Or Himler's? Stalin's? Osama bin Laden's? We can go on. I can't think of any one person who could be said to be that good a person. Better than most? Oh yes. Better than me? Hell yes! Good enough to cancel out even half of Hitler? Not even close.

But keep going. Don't think about it at all. Just follow your naive emotions about humanity being just so precious.

Stick more words in my mouth instead of actually thinking what I mean. Go on.

You say some people deserve to die so much there shouldn't even be remorse. So how far is the point where you no longer deserve remorse?

And what about those who would have deserved to live? How many of them are coming back? How many would want to be avenged? How many would want more blood spilled in their name?

Some people deserve to die. There has never been and there never will be a person who deserves to kill.

Sodas
07-01-2014, 05:20 PM
The humourous thing about the thread is that Kimon periodically steps in between the the angry shouting people and tries to have a dispassionate and factual discussion of ancient history. The image that comes to mind is of a room full of people throwing bottles at each other and one man standing on a table in the middle of the mayhem trying to hold a lecture on Herodotus.

I found this rather amusing. :)

Sodas
07-01-2014, 05:23 PM
Don't forget the WoT discussion!

Seems like someone is avoiding the subject as usual...

Sodas
07-01-2014, 06:17 PM
I was going to let this drop, because I felt like there's something going on in your head along the usual lines of playing devil's advocate or trolling, or in the worst case scenario, you're part of cult-like religion that makes Christianity's idiocy look mild by comparison, and there's just no point in engaging it.

Then I saw your reply to Sodas in another post about "lazy thinking" and realized that you actually and sincerely believe you are operating on some deeper and more insightful level than the rest of us, and that you believe your arguments aren't complete garbage.

Exactly right. Some of these people seem to be on some holy crusade to save your soul, no facts or history required.

Look, I used to call myself moderate, if leaning slightly left. But it's becoming clear that the idocracy is coming from the left these days, and they have built their own echo chamber. The problem is that many of us are born into that left echo chamber of MSNBC/CNN/AP/Soros and are taught from day one to distrust the other side as crazy. We should always be presented with both sides of the story.

But as you get older, and you learn more and more about history that you don't read about in the US public school system, and you learn that much of the school system is politicized for the left, you start to realize how big an issue this really has become that it threatens our Republic.

David Horowitz, famous conservative author, in 2012, went to UCLA and was given death threats for just speaking his mind on campus. That was true for the rest of his California book tour. He was told not to wear a yamuka. My parents also resented visited England, France and South Africa, and were told in all three countries the same thing.

The left is trying to shut down religious and conservative voices in this country. It has become exactly what they claim to hate so much - Nazi's.

Look at the recent supreme court decisions, read Scalia's opinion in the Mass. case. The left side or liberal side, is trying to destroy religions right to free speech in the US. Look at Obama's comments..."people want to just cling to their guns or religion" etc. Obama should be ashamed. You know who wanted to cling to guns and religion? Martin Luther King Jr. After his home was FIRE BOMBED by racists and bigots, he applied for a firearm permit helped by none other than the NRA. I believe he was denied that permit, and he was of course assassinated. The right to bare arms is, and has always been, a civil right. That is why when the KKK has, since it's founded, advocated one single policy - banning guns. That's why the KKK found it's home on the pro-slavery side after the Civil War, the Democrats.

The wool got pulled over my eyes too because the text books you read in school are now written by these same fools.

And that's what has happened. Control the education, control the world. That lesson has been known throughout history.

Where are the feminists standing up for women's rights in Iran on this board? Do people not realize that the Iranian government has made them no better than cattle?! Or in Saudi Arabia even the elite can't drive, or stand on a corner without a bodyguard for fear of being stoned to death. We aren't talking about one state, we are talking about a religion of 1.5 billion people in 60+ countries that endorse this practice.

Hitler came into power via Democracy via the offer of bread and jobs. Stalin used peace. jobs. democracy. It's all in the labeling to get people to buy in and forget any other idea, and then use that to shut down the other side's speech.

It's Nazism to it's core and it scares me living here, in California, the heart of the left experiment in this country. The "common core" they are trying to teach recently had questions like "Did the Holocaust happen." - http://youtu.be/fxOitxWi7dw

Do you want your kids to learn that? This is coming to a public school near you with Democrats in charge.

Don't mind the result of that lack of education and morals and it's ability to run city Governments : Such as Detroit, Chicago, LA, San Diego, San Fran, Vegas, or any other Democrat run city that has fallen apart.

yks 6nnetu hing
07-02-2014, 01:46 AM
At the risk of getting clobbered for butting in... You keep referring to religious persecution, using the word

NazismYou keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

The main difference between nazism and communism is that the first killed certain "other" nationalities and the latter killed rich people. If you're looking for a dictatorial system which eradicated religion, communism should be the one you ought to refer to.

Of course, in the case of Jews, they got the nasty end of the stick from both systems because for Jews, religion and nationality is the same thing; plus, much due to Mediaeval Christianity's own messed up ideas about making profit on loans (recommended reading: Jacques Le Goff "Money or life"), the Jews tended to be rich as well... so, yeah, the 20th century in particular was not a favourable time.

anyways, I believe the word you're looking for is "authoritarianism" or "dictatorship" - a system in which any opposing views are viciously suppressed. And, in all honesty, having caught the tail end of one dictatorial empire: USA is not one. Not by a long shot. Unless - have you been imprisoned and interrogated for singing a sarcastic song about the president? Have you lost your job or been kicked out of school because someone told the police that you practiced your religion? Both of these actually happened to my mom - and not at the height of the evil that was USSR, either.



now, getting away from semantics, people do really f'ed up things when the conditions are right. Ever heard of the Prison Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)? Now, it is my opinion that a crime is a crime, none of the massacres committed by one group of people on another group of people should ever be excused in any way. However, I think it is important to try and understand what leads up to these sorts of events so that we as humanity try and avoid them in the future. You know, the whole concept of leaving the Earth a better place for our children and all that.

Sodas
07-02-2014, 02:17 AM
Look, I'm not here to chew anyone out. Right now, I'm just speaking facts.

I know what it means. I know the Nazi's purposefully eradicated religion. Look up Gobbels and the Nazi Religion. Look up what they did to the Protestants in Nazi Germany? Look what they did to the Catholics? They firebombed the Churches too. I'm pretty sure that means if you are Protestant or Catholic, you probably got the short end of the stick too. (Not to mention the Gypsies)

My uncle, who leaves in Boca Raton Florida, teaches the history of the Holocaust. On his wrists there is a tattoo the Germans gave him. His number. He was cattle to them. To be burnt in the fires of Auswitz. He told me stories you will never read in a book.

You know why burning? and not just shooting the Jews.

The excuse that it is more "expedient" is a lie. A bullet or bomb costs way less than trains, death camps, gas, shower rooms, etc.

The reason the Germans burned the Jews is the same reason Naz doesn't get what I'm saying.

Jews believe simply that when you die, if you are a Good person, you go to Hashem. If you are not, you cease to be. End of your life story. That's the general gist of it.

Over the years, Jews became attached the idea that the Soul was connected to the body, still there for 3 days, before leaving. (Hence, 3 Days before Jesus rose) The body was important in that. You had to have it. Without your body, you would not transcend into the next life.

This is why the Jews were burnt. So they had no body and could not be move on to the next life/reborn (whatever happens, we don't know : edit). Hitler was no fool.

So I use the word Nazi because it really, in my mind, signifies the hate for "Organized Religion". And it signifies how easy Democracy can turn into Facism.

Communism? Yes, it's just as bad. Totalitarian regimes are the same as Nazism in one simple fact -

They don't believe any G-D is watching them.

Mao didn't believe it. Stalin didn't believe it. Not sure Putin does either. Not of these evil regimes ever really believe someone is watching them and is going to punish them in the next life.

Have you lost your job or been kicked out of school because someone told the police that you practiced your religion? Both of these actually happened to my mom - and not at the height of the evil that was USSR, either.

Wow. That is of course tragic to hear. I feel for your mom very much. In the same token, that is exactly what is going on. People are being forced out of roles because they are religious (National Academy of Sciences, Smithsonian) and for numerous other eggshell moments. Politics in the workplace is real - I know this very well. I've been a victim of that as well, but I'm not letting it define me. This is not the USSR, not by a long shot, but if people don't wake up, it can be over night.

GonzoTheGreat
07-02-2014, 03:29 AM
People are being forced out of roles because they are religious (National Academy of Sciences, Smithsonian) and for numerous other eggshell moments.
Can you show some examples of that?

I suspect that any example you come up with would not be actually that of someone being thrown out of the NAS because she was a Christian, but instead one of someone losing a job because she let her religious beliefs overrule scientific knowledge.
For instance, a spokesperson for the Smithsonian who blatantly lies about the age of the Earth in order to promote Creationism instead of telling the honest truth that science has discovered would not be sacked for anti-religious reasons but for not doing the job right.

Sodas
07-02-2014, 07:14 PM
Can you show some examples of that?

I suspect that any example you come up with would not be actually that of someone being thrown out of the NAS because she was a Christian, but instead one of someone losing a job because she let her religious beliefs overrule scientific knowledge.
For instance, a spokesperson for the Smithsonian who blatantly lies about the age of the Earth in order to promote Creationism instead of telling the honest truth that science has discovered would not be sacked for anti-religious reasons but for not doing the job right.

No, that's not what is going on at all. Sorry to be so blunt, if it was true, i'd agree, but that's just the cover up.

Secular scientists who have NO FAITH in Christian or Jewish ideals have been targeted solely because they question Darwinism.

"Roger DeHart used to teach biology at Burlington-Edison High School in Washington State, where he supplemented his curriculum with newspaper stories on the Chinese fossils from news-papers like the Boston Globe and the New York Times. He never mentioned God.29 The ACLU threatened to sue and the school removed DeHart from his class, replacing him with a recent teachers' college graduate who had majored in physical education. Thus were the students of Burlington-Edison High School saved from having to hear scientific facts"


"Bill Dembski has developed complicated mathematical formulas for detecting design in the universe, as distinct from chance or accident. Dembski has a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. When faculty members at Baylor University erupted in rage at the research center Dembski had started up at the university to test theories of design in the universe, not one professor on the committee investigating Dembski could understand the mathematical arguments he had made.' (But just to be safe, they abolished his research center anyway.)

In an article in the New York Times on intelligent design, the design proponents quoted in the article keep rattling off serious, scientific arguments—from Behe's examples in molecular biology to Dembski's mathematical formulas and statistical models. The Times reporter, who was clearly not trying to make the evolutionists sound retarded, was forced to keep describing the evolutionists' entire retort to these arguments as: Others disagree.'

That's it. No explanation, no specifics, just "others disagree." The high priests of evolution have not only forgotten how to do science, they've lost the ability to formulate a coherent counterargument. You keep waiting to hear a serious response to arguments by people like Behe, Dembski, and Hoyle, but the evolutionists just scream that evolution is a FACT and if you don't believe it, you must be a fundamentalist who believes the Earth is flat.

Which is rather presumptuous, considering the scientific standing of the typical evolutionist. Their grandiose self-conceptions to the contrary, the cult members are rarely scientists at all. They're almost always biologists—the "science" with the greatest preponderance of women. The distaff MIT "scientist" who fled the room in response to Larry Summers's remarks was, of course, a biologist. While I'm sure there have been groundbreaking discoveries about the internal digestive system of the earthworm, biologists are barely even scientists anymore. They're classifiers, list-makers, like librarians with their Dewey decimal system. Except librarians don't claim the Dewey decimal system holds the Rosetta Stone to the universe. There were once great biologists, but the morally vacuous ones began to promote their own at the universities. It was a sort of intelligently designed devolution. Like Marxists gradually dominating the comp lit department, biologists will only be given tenure today if they forswear any doubts about the evolution pseudoscience. Consequently, "biologist" almost always means "evolutionary biologist," which is something like an "ESP biologist."

- Ann Coulter, Godless

GonzoTheGreat
07-03-2014, 03:59 AM
The ACLU threatened to sue and the school removed DeHart from his class, ...
Oh my, the mere threat of a lawsuit is enough already.

The standard used by your school boards is not even "guilty if accused" but "guilty if one threatens to accuse".
Perhaps a better solution than ditching the theory of evolution would be to get some proper school boards, ones that understand and apply the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

In an article in the New York Times on intelligent design, the design proponents quoted in the article keep rattling off serious, scientific arguments—from Behe's examples in molecular biology to Dembski's mathematical formulas and statistical models. The Times reporter, who was clearly not trying to make the evolutionists sound retarded, was forced to keep describing the evolutionists' entire retort to these arguments as: Others disagree.'
Behe has been quite thoroughly debunked years ago. If that is amongst the best there is in criticism of evolution (and I don't think you have any better) then the objections are indeed vapid and should be ignored.

I never really looked into what Dembski says, but when it comes to Behe I do know that he does not succeed in what he tries to do. The best he did was come up with a more precise formulation of a potential objection to evolution than the one that Darwin himself already presented in the Origin. Darwin admits that if such a problem were to be found then it would disprove his theory, what Behe does is give a better reformulation of this potential problem (Irreducible Complexity, he calls it) without ever admitting that Darwin had already spotted the issue.
Then Behe goes on and picks a couple of features in biology, asserting that they are Irreducibly Complex. In many cases, it had been proven before he said this that he was wrong, in the other cases biologists looked better and then found out that he had been wrong. For some examples of this, you can read the transcripts of the Dover Trial. That's yet another case where I have to give Behe credit: he actually showed up to defend his position, even though he lost. Dembski did not even bother to try, possibly because he knew he could not manage to stand up to serious criticism.

Sodas
07-03-2014, 03:57 PM
I never really looked into what Dembski says

So you know nothing about what he actually said, and anything you know is filtered through others.

This is again, one of my points in this thread.

Oh my, the mere threat of a lawsuit is enough already.

The standard used by your school boards is not even "guilty if accused" but "guilty if one threatens to accuse".
Perhaps a better solution than ditching the theory of evolution would be to get some proper school boards, ones that understand and apply the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

I think you are missing one key piece of information, outside your archaic understanding of science : including the importance of the Cambrian Explosion, DNA, cell anti-random mutation qualities and so on, is that ...

they are all Democrats.

So yes, get rid of them. Good point Gonzo. I'm glad you agree.

Tell me Gonzo, how many species of finches were there on the Galapagos islands in 1835?

Terez
07-03-2014, 10:24 PM
I can't express how flabbergasted I am that someone just quoted Ann Coulter at length to make a point on this thread. I thought surely her World Cup article would be the final nail in her coffin, but no, it appears people still take her seriously!

Zombie Sammael
07-03-2014, 11:07 PM
I can't express how flabbergasted I am that someone just quoted Ann Coulter at length to make a point on this thread. I thought surely her World Cup article would be the final nail in her coffin, but no, it appears people still take her seriously!

Her World Cup article was amazing. No prospect of serious injury in soccer? Tell that to the hundreds of footballers worldwide whose careers (and hobbies, we must not forget the lower tiers of the football pyramid) have been ended by broken legs, ankles, and other injuries. It was, I suppose, good for a laugh.

GonzoTheGreat
07-04-2014, 02:54 AM
No prospect of serious injury in soccer?
Last year, an arbiter was kicked to death by a couple of players and supporters. But they didn't use guns, because guns are not allowed in soccer; hence, it was obviously "not serious".

Zombie Sammael
07-04-2014, 03:57 AM
Oh Gonzo. I can't rep you at the moment - apparently I have to spread it around first, and Lupus might have something to say about that if she ever gets her account back - but there have been so many times I've wanted to.

eht slat meit
07-04-2014, 11:49 AM
I can't express how flabbergasted I am that someone just quoted Ann Coulter at length to make a point on this thread. I thought surely her World Cup article would be the final nail in her coffin, but no, it appears people still take her seriously!

This is probably one of few times where I've agreed with Terez - why on earth would you quote a mindless fanatic like Coulter? She's the right's mildly more attractive answer to Michael Moore. All shock-value and reactionary knee-jerk politics.

Sodas
07-05-2014, 04:29 AM
I can't express how flabbergasted I am that someone just quoted Ann Coulter at length to make a point on this thread.

She graduated Cum Laude from Cornell with a BA in History, and her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School. She founded The Cornell Review, was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society, and was trained at the National Journalism center.

Gonzo asked for examples.

Probably the reason you are so flabbergasted is because you are too out of the loop on science to understand anything she is saying. But what can I say for someone who has to be so vague when it was clear I was the one who quoted her.

You play dumb, but no one believes it Terez. It's you who are stupid and deceptive.

Sodas
07-05-2014, 04:31 AM
This is probably one of few times where I've agreed with Terez - why on earth would you quote a mindless fanatic like Coulter? She's the right's mildly more attractive answer to Michael Moore. All shock-value and reactionary knee-jerk politics.

How do you know? did you read her 9 books?

talking out your wazzoooo.....

GonzoTheGreat
07-05-2014, 04:48 AM
Sodas, I notice that you are silent on my criticism of Behe. Does that mean that in his case at least you admit that he is simply wrong?

If not, then why focus only on the part where I admit that I do not know enough to have a serious discussion while ignoring the part where I am certain that I can show that your use of Behe shows that you yourself do not know what you are talking about?

eht slat meit
07-05-2014, 10:02 AM
How do you know? did you read her 9 books?

talking out your wazzoooo.....

Actually, I do a lot of reading, and I definitely have *not* read all nine. I remember reading Treason and rolling my eyes. Godless sealed it for me as her being a flaky right-wing equivalent of Michael Moore.

Terez
07-05-2014, 04:19 PM
She graduated Cum Laude from Cornell with a BA in History, and her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School.
I'll tell you something about lawyers that you apparently don't know. They are trained to represent clients by manipulating the body of law to support their case. Lawyers who care overly much about goodness and truth do not stay employed long. They are not trained to tell you the truth. They are trained to win. Do Coulter's degrees indicate that she is smarter than you? Probably. They also indicate that she is more than capable of making terrible arguments look logical.

Sodas
07-05-2014, 08:41 PM
Actually, I do a lot of reading, and I definitely have *not* read all nine. I remember reading Treason and rolling my eyes. Godless sealed it for me as her being a flaky right-wing equivalent of Michael Moore.

I'm sure you do. You seem very intelligent and open to debate.

At one point, I was convinced Ann Coulter was a crazy wacko too. But I didn't see what was going on to smear her as a crazy, or Fox news in general, for that matter. I didn't realize the scope of the Left media, it's influence, as well as the scope in the US education system. I didn't realize the scope of the Atheist push on Science, which helped me find David Berlinski and other intelligent design scientists who don't believe the Earth is 5000 years old.

My views have changed, I grew up. I went to college, got a job, pay taxes, been married for 10+ years, voted, dealt with my wife being sexually harassed (because she is beautiful), dealt with one of my bosses denying me baby bonding time, raised 3 beautiful children who are at the top of their class, dealt with the crazy other parents in the parking lot....

I admit I was wrong in my viewpoint because I wasn't taught the entire context of what was going on in this country. I didn't realize that moral relativism was so dangerous and so infectious. Now I know, and feel confident in myself enough to speak my opinions without feeling put down by their comments, even if the other side vehemently shouts me down with every insult imaginable. I'm sure you can see that they are irrational, constantly on the attack.

All I ask is, consider the other side again. Give them a fresh chance. Look at the Tea Party and what it means for the Republican party going forward in the future. Look at Obama's poll numbers.

Consider it, is all I ask.

Sodas
07-05-2014, 08:49 PM
I'll tell you something about lawyers that you apparently don't know. They are trained to represent clients by manipulating the body of law to support their case. Lawyers who care overly much about goodness and truth do not stay employed long. They are not trained to tell you the truth. They are trained to win. Do Coulter's degrees indicate that she is smarter than you? Probably. They also indicate that she is more than capable of making terrible arguments look logical.

Are you a lawyer Terez?

If you are, you should be disbarred for that comment. But I doubt it. Instead, you are just pretending to know something, when you clearly don't.

Sodas
07-05-2014, 08:59 PM
Sodas, I notice that you are silent on my criticism of Behe.

Because frankly, you didn't respond to my two examples in any coherent manner, and exposed your lack of knowledgeable in the subject.

Does that mean that in his case at least you admit that he is simply wrong?

You are clearly out of the loop on science.

Behe is biochemist who proved, contrary to Darwinists claims, that the cell itself acts counter to random mutation (aka. micro-evolution).

"In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, Behe used discoveries in microbiology to refute Darwinism on Darwin's own terms. Darwin had set forth this extremely self-serving standard for himself: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

This is a fantastic formulation I intend to remember in case I ever need to defend one of my own crackpot theories. On one hand, Dar-win makes what appears to be a sweeping concession that his theory might "absolutely break down." But in the same breath, he says that will happen only if an impossible test is met: If it is demonstrated that his theory "could not possibly form" a complex organ. Would the Dar-win believers take that standard as a scientific test for God? If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down. If only traffic court judges would fall for that line of reasoning: "Your honor, can you prove that the photo of me running the red light wasn't staged? Oh, you can't? I move for an immediate dismissal so I can return to my home planet, Zircon."

Nevertheless, Behe disproved evolution—unless evolution is simply a nondisprovable pseudoscience, like astrology. Behe produced various "irreducibly complex" mechanisms, of which there are thousands—complex cellular structures, blood-clotting mechanisms, and the eye, among others. A bacterial motor, called a flagellum, depends on the coordinated interaction of 30–40 complex protein parts. The absence of almost any one of the parts would render the flagellum useless. An animal cell's whiplike oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200 protein parts. Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap, with far fewer necessary components than a cilium or flagellum. Though there are only a few parts to a mousetrap, all of them have to be working together at one time for the contraption to serve any function whatsoever. If one of the parts is missing, Behe says, you don't get a mousetrap that catches only half as many mice: you don't get a mouse-trap at all. Behe then demonstrated that it is a mathematical impossi-bility for all 30 parts of the flagellum (or 200 parts of the cilium) to have been brought together by the "numerous, successive, slight modifications" of natural selection. Life at the molecular level, he concluded, "is a loud, clear, piercing cry of design." - Ann Coulter, The Church of Liberalism

Like Bill Nye says, science rules.

eht slat meit
07-05-2014, 09:02 PM
I'm sure you do. You seem very intelligent and open to debate.

Absolutely; however, I am open to neither the conservative nor liberal philosophies, and both the Republican and Democratic parties are permanently filed in my trash folder.

At one point, I was convinced Ann Coulter was a crazy wacko too.

I classify her "flakiness" less in the nutjob category than I do in the "Howard Stern School of Pointlessly Shocking Offensiveness" category.

But I didn't see what was going on to smear her as a crazy, or Fox news in general, for that matter.

Fox carries about as much weight as MSNBC with me.

See above comments.

My views have changed, I grew up. I went to college, got a job, pay taxes,

Been there, done that. My jadedness stems directly from what should measure to be roughly sixteen years of political failure that I expect to continue for the foreseeable future. My worldview is self-taught; I do not rely on desperately shallow news media outlets, and often do my own research on topics of interest.

The religious context is meaningless to me. Apparently the in-thing is atheism these days, though I identify more closely with agnosticism.I have a great deal of respect for spirituality, very little to almost none for organized religion.

When viewing the entire context, I see that there is very little organized discussion, merely a lot of shouting from both sides, with almost no intelligent insight contributed by either, substituted almost entirely by talking points.

I'm not sure if you can understand how frustrating it is to try and have an intelligent discussion with someone without them immediately falling back to kneejerk defensiveness where they accuse me of being whatever ideology they are fighting with. I get this from liberals, from conservatives, from occupy, from tea party, from dems and reps. It's failure on a colossal scale. They want to be angry, they want to shout, and they want to silence the opposition who they feel has had far too much say for far too long.

And "they" equals all of them.

When I see an improvement in this, I may give them a chance. As a former Alaskan, the last person I "gave a chance" was Sarah Palin.

I think you've seen how that worked out.

Sodas
07-05-2014, 09:35 PM
Absolutely; however, I am open to neither the conservative nor liberal philosophies, and both the Republican and Democratic parties are permanently filed in my trash folder.



I classify her "flakiness" less in the nutjob category than I do in the "Howard Stern School of Pointlessly Shocking Offensiveness" category.



Fox carries about as much weight as MSNBC with me.

See above comments.



Been there, done that. My jadedness stems directly from what should measure to be roughly sixteen years of political failure that I expect to continue for the foreseeable future. My worldview is self-taught; I do not rely on desperately shallow news media outlets, and often do my own research on topics of interest.

The religious context is meaningless to me. Apparently the in-thing is atheism these days, though I identify more closely with agnosticism.I have a great deal of respect for spirituality, very little to almost none for organized religion.

When viewing the entire context, I see that there is very little organized discussion, merely a lot of shouting from both sides, with almost no intelligent insight contributed by either, substituted almost entirely by talking points.

I'm not sure if you can understand how frustrating it is to try and have an intelligent discussion with someone without them immediately falling back to kneejerk defensiveness where they accuse me of being whatever ideology they are fighting with. I get this from liberals, from conservatives, from occupy, from tea party, from dems and reps. It's failure on a colossal scale. They want to be angry, they want to shout, and they want to silence the opposition who they feel has had far too much say for far too long.

And "they" equals all of them.

When I see an improvement in this, I may give them a chance. As a former Alaskan, the last person I "gave a chance" was Sarah Palin.

I think you've seen how that worked out.

lol. :D

You make a great point. The Republican system has put forward some idiots lately. Both party systems are setup to reward idiots, showboats, and charlatans running for office.

I don't disagree. Never trust a politician.

I think both sides have become infected with the ideocracy. But we can do better, we don't have to take it, is what I would suggest in response.

eht slat meit
07-05-2014, 09:41 PM
lol. :D

You make a great point. The Republican system has put forward some idiots lately. Both party systems are setup to reward idiots, showboats, and charlatans running for office.

I feel like that has become the status quo for both sides, and is intended to remain that way as it specifically rewards the corporate backers. Democrats will acknowledge that Republicans do that and happily so, but they like to play this game where they pretend they aren't doing the exact same thing. This is *why* I do the research.

Talking points keep things comfortably shallow and prevent people from exploring uncomfortable truths that would get both parties and their sponsors in trouble.

It's not strictly idiocracy in the sense of everyone's gone stupid, but the cultivation of outrage and emotionalism so that people rely on their basest responses rather than reason and intellect.

Terez
07-05-2014, 11:27 PM
Are you a lawyer Terez?

If you are, you should be disbarred for that comment. But I doubt it. Instead, you are just pretending to know something, when you clearly don't.
Pretending to know something that most people already know? Every trial has at least one lawyer on both sides. One side is right, and one side is wrong, but the lawyers at both tables are trained to make their argument seem like the right one. That is common knowledge. And yes, that involves manipulating the law, looking for loopholes or technicalities, or just plain deceptive arguments. This is why the right side doesn't always win.

eht slat meit
07-05-2014, 11:35 PM
As I'm still in that rare state of complete agreement with Terez, Sodas, let me put this in a frame of context that you should be able to appreciate far more:

Hilary Clinton.

Chances are good you already know what I'm referring to, but if you need a refresher, I'm including the link.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/01/opinion/callan-hillary-clinton/

While we're "just plain folks" who might not be schooled in all the ah, advanced art of lawyering, the article makes it clear what the layperson such as ourselves already know:

One side in any criminal trial is always wrong and actively trying to ensure that their "wrongness" prevails, whether it's to ensure that a guilty party walks or an innocent party is punished.

Terez
07-06-2014, 02:24 AM
Apologies, by the way, for the oversimplification of right vs wrong. Sometimes it's straightforward, but usually it's not. Law is complicated, and there are always nuances. The Hillary article is good; the distinction between moral good and legal ethics is pretty stark in that story.

Sodas
07-07-2014, 12:38 AM
As I'm still in that rare state of complete agreement with Terez, Sodas, let me put this in a frame of context that you should be able to appreciate far more:

Hilary Clinton.

My family knows her, and Bill, well, in real life. Went to school and social events together in Connecticut/New York. Like I said, probably would help to know who I am before suggesting I don't know someone, lol.

My problem is slandering all lawyers as liars, when Terez clearly isn't one. I have plenty of lawyer friends who are more honest than Terez. Lawyers do serve a purpose in our society ... including arguing for constitutional cases and handling contracts. That she is so brainwashed is a product of our society self hating itself.

Terez
07-07-2014, 12:50 AM
I never said lawyers served no purpose in society, nor did I slander all lawyers. I said they won't stay employed long if they care "overly much" about goodness and truth. I chose my words very carefully; I have friends and family who are lawyers too. The reason I brought this up, if you'll recall:

Me: [Ann Coulter is hardly an authoritative source.]
You: [But she has a degree in bullshit and she founded the Bullshit Review, blah blah blah!]
Me: [...]

In other words, I and others reject Ann Coulter as an authoritative source because of her reputation for insane bullshit arguments. You offered her law degrees/accomplishments as proof of her authoritativeness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_to_non-authorities) on the subject of science. They aren't; they only explain why she is able to convince so many people that she has any clue what she is talking about.

Zombie Sammael
07-07-2014, 02:50 AM
Who is it that has Jeff's line from Community about truth being relative, again?

Frenzy
07-07-2014, 11:58 PM
My views have changed, I grew up. I went to college, got a job, pay taxes, been married for 10+ years, voted, dealt with my wife being sexually harassed (because she is beautiful), dealt with one of my bosses denying me baby bonding time, raised 3 beautiful children who are at the top of their class, dealt with the crazy other parents in the parking lot.....

Why the parenthetical?

GonzoTheGreat
07-08-2014, 02:32 AM
Why the parenthetical?
Presumably, if she hadn't been beautiful, he would not have bothered dealing with it. Or something.

Nazbaque
07-08-2014, 02:39 AM
Presumably, if she hadn't been beautiful, he would not have bothered dealing with it. Or something.

I'm guessing he wouldn't have stayed married for 10+ years and raised those 3 presumably not that beautiful children.