Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
Printable View
Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
So how did the universe begin? Did it just begin, even the big bang theory relies on a pre existing giant world blowing up. Scientifically, NOTHING can simply exist, that is the basis of science. Therefore the begining of the universe is non-scientific. Non-scientific means that there was some supernatural element in the creation of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
My personal belief is that it is impossible to obtain the absolute truth, since all knowledge is based on perception.
What? In anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenshin
I'm susprised not one person has talked about how this whole "war on terror" is a complete lie. If you have no idea what I'm talking about or think I'm crazy, I highly, highly suggest you take a look at this website:
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
It is a thoroughly researched and well-articulated look into the events of 9/11. And the author is certainly not alone.
Here are a few of the questions he asks:
9. "Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from the place where UA Flight 93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash [or the attack on the jet] at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday." (Pittsburg Post Gazette, Sept. 13, 2001) If this plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes when there was only a 10 mph wind blowing? (For wind-borne debris to travel six miles in, say, six minutes requires a 60 mph wind.)
11. Does the Fireman's Video show that the plane which hit the North Tower did not have engines attached to the wings and thus was not a Boeing 767? Does it reveal that missiles were fired from this plane just before it hit?
12. Since no public TV cameras were trained on the North Tower at the time of impact, what was the source of the transmission of the North Tower impact which George W. Bush says he saw before he went into the classroom in Florida? Why did he do nothing (except continue listening to a little girl's story about a goat) for half an hour after he was informed that the second jet hit the South Tower (and that America was "under attack")? Did Bush have prior knowledge of the WTC attack?
13. Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? Did the FBI prepare in advance a list of the names (and aliases) of the (alleged) "Arab hijackers" on those flights?
14. Why did the South Tower collapse first, 56 minutes after it was hit, rather than the North Tower (which was hit first and collapsed 1 hour and 44 minutes after being hit), even though the fire in the North Tower (the alleged cause of the collapse) was more intense?
18. Would jet fuel burning in an enclosed space (with little oxygen available for combustion) actually produce temperatures high enough (1538°C, i.e. 2800°F) to melt massive steel beams (and all the steel beams, since steel conducts heat efficiently) enclosed in concrete in just 56 minutes? If so, wouldn't the Twin Towers have buckled and bent, and toppled over onto the surrounding buildings in the Lower Manhattan financial district, rather than collapsing neatly upon themselves in the manner of a controlled demolition?
23. Who stood to benefit from the complete destruction of the Twin Towers?
-----
As always, you have to ask yourself, who stands to benefit from an event? As Seneca said, "He who profits by a crime, commits it." Always ask questions and never accept what the mainstream media or the government tell you is the "truth."
Retarded conspiracy theories ahoy.
G. I. JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakkal
My suggestion to you is either, A. Read the information, look at the pictures, and watch the movies before you reply, or B. Don't try to belittle something you haven't even examined. Or try answering some of those questions I posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Those idiotic questions have been asked and answered millions of times. But I will humor you and say its all because of our Reptilian overlords who live underneath the Denver Airport and feed on babies for fuel.
Marx was speaking about the state's use of a higher power to justify their appointment to the post - monarchs routinely claimed to have been appointed by God because hey, how else could they get there? (Remind you of anyone, btw?) Heads of state were also often nominal heads of church, making any rebellion sacrilege. Western religion conventionally projects a person's hope's and dreams into the next life provided they are obedient in this one, promising eternal euphoria as long as you do what the organization demands of you.
Or maybe he thought people got high off those acoustic guitar songs with the hand-clapping actions.
Uhh...opium?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Anyway, Marx should not ignored out of hand - he (and Engels) were pretty much the fathers of postmodern political and religious analysis, and without their efforts more substantial philosophers such as Nietzche may never have been able to give voice to their views. No serious course on postmodern religious thought is taught without considering the Marxist point of view.
Don't link Marx invariably with communism - he may have influenced it, but he didn't invent it and was a hundred years dead by the time Trotsky was doing his thing.
StriderKyo you are thinking that I am thinking simplistically. Im not linking him to communism outright. I studied a lot of Marxist writings in my sociology of music class and I am aware of the effects of his thoughts. But that doesn't mean he was right or that better ideas havent supplanted his - its kind of like Freud. Amazing, brilliant thinker, but a lot of his ideas have become outdated.
Yes, it does remind me of somebody - all the Monarchs that used to do it that no longer have any power! In any case, in Western countries today leaders are elected so they no longer do this, which proves my point that this quote about religion being the opiate of the masses is taken out of context by atheists today.Quote:
Marx was speaking about the state's use of a higher power to justify their appointment to the post - monarchs routinely claimed to have been appointed by God because hey, how else could they get there? (Remind you of anyone, btw?)
I'd put Freud (well) ahead of him, but I think that's an excellent comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Even those monarchs possessed the mandate of the people. There's little question in my mind Dubya feels he has been annointed by God - read the memoirs of almost anyone who has been involved in his administration, even those who take a favourable view of him like David Frum. It's as much a product of his worldview as any messianic impulse.Quote:
Yes, it does remind me of somebody - all the Monarchs that used to do it that no longer have any power! In any case, in Western countries today leaders are elected so they no longer do this, which proves my point that this quote about religion being the opiate of the masses is taken out of context by atheists today.
Asked and answered millions of times? By who?? I've never heard any answers from the authorities. How can part of Flight 93 have landed 8 miles away from the crash site if it simply was flown into the ground? If you're calling them idiotic, then I think you might just be afraid to look at what's really happening in the world. Anyone who has looked at the evidence, especially all the insider stock trading right before the attacks, knows that the offical story is a joke. They've never even offered any evidence that bin Laden is responsible, they just said he did it, and people have blindly believed them.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I suppose you'll be one of the people blaming the next domestic attacks on al-Qaeda/whoever the Elite want to start aggressions with. The Nazis did this sort of thing all the time, guys. Organize and carry out an attack yourself, then blame it on whoever you want the public to hate.
If not bin Laden himself, there's certainly a mountain of evidence that Al Qaeda planned and carried out the attacks, not the least of which is bin Laden's claim of responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakkal
In my opinion, there really is no evidence that al-Qaeda (which was created by the CIA, by the way) carried out the attacks on the day itself. They may have told some of the patsies (like Atta) what they expected them to do, but the planes that hit the WTC didn't have people in them. Did you know that most of the alleged hijackers are still alive?Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
Here are just some (and I stress that) anomalies:
-An extremely high volume of put options - a bet on the price of shares falling - were purchased for the stock of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, the international financiers which occupied 22 storeys of the World Trade Centre. Even more telling were the volume of put options on American and United Airlines, which owned the four aircraft "hijacked" by the "terrorists." On these two airlines, and only these two, the level of share trade went up by 1,200 per cent in the three days prior to the catastrophe. As the shares dropped in response to the terrorism, the value of these options multiplied a
hundred fold.
-Bush says that he was sitting outside the Sarasota classroom waiting for the start of the Pet Goat reading when he saw the first plane crash into the Twin Towers on a television monitor. "I saw the airplane hit the tower -
the TV was obviously on and I used to fly myself," he was to explain later. The President recalls that he turned to his security men, joking: "There’s one
terrible pilot."
Yet the footage of the first plane crashing into the Twin Tower did not emerge for another 13 hours (what millions of us saw was live footage of the second plane). Shots of the first plane, taken accidentally by a French documentary maker filming in Manhattan, were only released publicly for television the following day.
Ha, yeah, pretty idiotic points right enough. How could I have been so stupid?
OH MY GOD THE GOVERNMENT IS AFTER ME
The CIA helped set it up, but they did not create it by any stretch. Nor can they really be held accountable for what it became - they were only interested in setting up an anti-soviet resistance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakkal
Weird fact - I used to have an ancient GI Joe comic about the Joes parachuting into an Afghanistan knock-off and meeting up with a CIA contact who was delivering arms to arab freedom fighters. Wish I kept it now.
er, anyway, there's all kinds of evidence, from flight recorders to the celphone calls made to taped phonecalls of Al Qaeda setting it up to testimony from Al Qaeda moles and the traced movements of the hijackers.
Given the nature of the blaze which ensued, how could anybody prove there was nobody on them one way or the other?Quote:
They may have told some of the patsies (like Atta) what they expected them to do, but the planes that hit the WTC didn't have people in them.
Er, this allegation is based on what?Quote:
Did you know that most of the alleged hijackers are still alive?
None of which prove anything other than that Bush makes stuff up, which was already well established. It's a massive leap saying that because some brokers thought Witter shares would drop that the CIA planned 9/11. You have to offer some kind of actual evidence. I'll bet you could find just as many companies that suffered from the event whose stock price rose the day before.Quote:
Here are just some (and I stress that) anomalies:
I don't like the Bushites either, but don't you think it's a little hypocritical that you're willing to let Al Qaeda off the hook based on percieved inconsistencies, but hang the US government on the same tack? It's not as though Al Qaeda's done anything to deserve benefit of doubt.
I think the worst thingyou can say is that the Republicans opportunistically used september 11th to push other agendas, but come on. They're politicians. It's what they do for a living. It makes them jerks, not monsters.
We haven't discovered how it "began." The possibility exists that we might in the future, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
The lack of evidence explaining how the universe began does not prove the existence of God.
You beat me to it, but thank fuck someone said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
The fastest answer to all your questions, mate, is to simply read the evidence in the link I posted before, and make up your own mind.
Once again, it is http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
The reason I say there was no one on the planes is that I feel the video and photographic evidence proves that they were not the same planes that left the airports, but they were switched. In the case of the first impact, it was a military craft which can be seen firing 2 projectiles at the tower right before impact, and in the case of the second impact, a jumbo jet identical to the one that left the airport, but equipped with a projectile of some kind near its underbelly.
Why was only the second one a jumbo jet? They knew that after the first impact, all eyes in the world would be trained on the Twin Towers, and thus only a jumbo jet would suffice to fool everyone. They did not expect there to be amateur video of the first impact, and figured everyone would believe it was a pasenger plane in their state of complete shock. I probably would if I was in NYC that day. But there was amateur video, and it is a big smoking gun. Why did they bother to use a military craft in the first collision, you ask? My guess is a military craft is easier to control than a remote-controlled jumbo jet is. This is evident from the bad approach angle of the second plane, where most of jet fuel burned outside the building.
And everything else just stinks. Atta's passport being so conveniently found on the streets, the Pentagon impact clearly not being caused by a jumbo jet, the long delay in fighter jet response, the military conducting war games on the same day (in order to cause confusion), everything.
I can't believe he took me seriously. I would have thought saying that Marx was dead-on was a giveaway. Oh well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteriousRacerC
You and YAWA should have a chat about UFO's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakkal
Well, Mike, it's the internet and meeting a stoner on the internet who is all about Marx and goes "dude... deep" while blasting GnR isn't very far fetched.
Dick Cheney is officially the man now.
"Go eff yourself, Leahy!"
Awesome.
Did Cheney have a face transplant? Why does he look like he's only 90 now?
The thing is you can't. Any explanation will end up with trying to figure out how thing new beginning "began".Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
EDIT: Jakkal, you do know that Bin Laden himself admitted he planned 9/11 himself right?
I do have an idea of what you're talking about and I do think you're certifiable. Not to mention the idiots that run that website.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakkal
Video of Bin Laden admitting it himself was widely shown where he gleefully bragged he only thought a portion of 3 to 4 floors would've been taken out and the people on them, but never expected the whole buildings to come down as a result of it. But I suppose, like the other conspiracy idiots, you'll suggest the CIA doctored it themselves (the Al Jazzera position) to fool us into believing this whole phony war on terror which was really just about some Caspian oil pipeline they wanna run through Afghanistan, right? Terrorism is all a big joke, eh?Quote:
They've never even offered any evidence that bin Laden is responsible, they just said he did it, and people have blindly believed them.
Your propoganda needs work.Quote:
Did you know that most of the alleged hijackers are still alive?
Because you are.Quote:
How could I have been so stupid?
There's no reason to take you seriously or to examine your ridiculous accusations. My suggestion is to STFU and stop peddling your crap. Know that not being taken seriously by Almaci is a very high indicator you've already lost.Quote:
My suggestion to you is either, A. Read the information, look at the pictures, and watch the movies before you reply, or B. Don't try to belittle something you haven't even examined. Or try answering some of those questions I posted.
Blah, blah, Bush, blah, Nazi, blah, Hitler, blah, etc. And everything's a Reichstag fire. We get it.Quote:
I suppose you'll be one of the people blaming the next domestic attacks on al-Qaeda/whoever the Elite want to start aggressions with. The Nazis did this sort of thing all the time, guys.
Btw, your website has links to a front group for the old Stalinist World Workers' Party. You've lost all credibility in my eyes for that alone. Also, I had no idea Noam Chomsky could be characterized as a "libertarian." But, I did find an Orwell quote on there of value: "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." Too bad they don't take his advice and boy, do I love when far-left lunatics insinuate they're fans of his...
I don't know, but if Bush were to come out to a statement or something and was like, "Yeah, we fucked up Iraq. I don't care what you think. Suck on deez nuts, bitches!" he'd win the election in a landslide.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
Cheney is the bomb.
Jakal: read Against All Enemies by Richard A. Clarke. Then shut up.
You've totally lost me on the bold stuff. As for the rest...Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
Assertions. You can't prove any of this.
Newton.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Dumb it down for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
Are you saying that all things had (at some point) a cause? Generally speaking, this is the case...but that doesn't mean a supernatural power was the ultimate cause to everything (and just b/c virtually everything we observe have 'causes' does NOT prove that ALL things have causes).
Besically newtons law says that energy is never really lost or created, it may be transformed but never lost or created. So by Newtons law, there is as much energy now as there ever was, no more no less.
Tell that Einstein, or more importantly, to a photon that is more than 1.2MeV colliding into a helium nucleus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
I really am amazed at the lengths some radical lefties will go to justify their beliefs. Al Queda isn't responsible for 9/11? It was all a plot by Dick Cheney so Haliburton could line their pockets right? I'm so tired of this bullshit, it's gotten to the point where these people think they can just swing the word "Haliburton" like a cudgel to ward off any facts that might come their way. The good of the country is more important than your personal political alliegance so give the propaganda a rest. Everyone has ties to other people and groups, and you can devise damning conspiracy theories about any event in anyone's life if you try hard enough. Life happens, the most simple explanation is usually the correct one.
All this hysteria over the Patriot Act is really retarded. I don't see how anyone that actually knows what the Patriot Act is could be so afraid of it. The power that it gives the government is nothing new, the government has had that power in dealing with lesser criminal activity for many years. Racial profiling got your panties in a bundle? How about gender profiling? Height and weight profiling? Hair color profiling? Should we just avoid criminal profiling in general so as not to offend anyone? Since when is good detective work immoral or wrong? The bottom line is this: 50 years ago our country had glaring civil rights problems. There was a noble cause to champion, and those that took it up felt a fulfilling sense of purpose. In 2004, the pendulum has swung the other way, yet still some people so thrive off that sense of purpose that they try to invent wrongs to right. It might be vanilla, it might not make a good Oliver Stone movie, but try blaming the terrorists for the terrorism.
Mike: Did you hear Dick Cheney's response to some reporter asking him if he was going to appologize for "dropping the F-bomb"? It was magnificent.
Cheney: "Of course I'm not going to appologize, I never appologize when I use that word. It felt really good to say it too. My integrity was questioned and I wasn't happy about that".
When you see an asshole say "Fuck you all day long" and if someone asks you to appologize for it, fuck them too.
If by "pre-existing giant world blowing up", you mean "space-time expanding out from an infinitely dense/small point", you're 100% right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
As for the existance of God, there is no scientific proof he exists. There never will be. If there was, it'd defeat the whole point of Faith. There are magical special things in this world that refuse to be proven, and there comes a time when the only point of proof is to satisfy the human need to know everything. Do you love your Mom? Prove it. You can't. Does that mean you don't love her? No, it means love is one of those special things that eludes microscopes and labcoats. Is that such a bad thing?
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1999/ph123/lec01.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
What part are you talking about, you can apply that event to multiple areas.
Yes. Forget my previous post. I was lost at what exactly you were trying to say. When I say energy isn't created or lost, I mean like if you create a proton, you must also create an anti-proton of some form as antimatter or from a neutrn to a proton and electron.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Note - Jakkal is not a representation of a "radical lefty," he's a representation of a fucking moron. And, yes, there is a difference.
Now everyone with a dead gun runner in their avatars try again to explain what the war in Iraq has to do with the war on terror without sounding like an idiot. Of all the games we play here, that one's my absolute favoritest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteriousRacerC
Quote:
favoritest.
:confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
Damn good post man. Straight and to the fucking point.
SpoDaddy on Sound Off! is a totally, completely different person from SpoDaddy on Gaming Discussion.
And yes, that's a compliment.
Talking about Nintendo does strange, terrible things to Spo.
Freud isn't worth as much as you think he is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
Nice, now how about actually replying against the points I brought forward?
I don't think anyone reasonable in this thread said that 9/11 wasn't Al-Qaeda. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
I think the main fear about the Patriot Act is that the definition of "terrorist activities" is REALLY broad. I could be wrong, though, and it could just be idiocy.Quote:
All this hysteria over the Patriot Act is really retarded. I don't see how anyone that actually knows what the Patriot Act is could be so afraid of it. The power that it gives the government is nothing new, the government has had that power in dealing with lesser criminal activity for many years.
Yeah, dude. Cheney is the bomb. That's why I said Bush would have my vote if he were like that.Quote:
Mike: Did you hear Dick Cheney's response to some reporter asking him if he was going to appologize for "dropping the F-bomb"? It was magnificent.
Cheney: "Of course I'm not going to appologize, I never appologize when I use that word. It felt really good to say it too. My integrity was questioned and I wasn't happy about that".
Q: "Mr. President! What do you think about the bad information the CIA gave you concerning Iraq and Saddam Hussein?"
A: "It was bad information. End of fucking discussion, asshole. Don't like it? Go kill yourself."
Instead, we get Rain Main. :(
I hope you don't mind me putting that in my sig. Hehe.Quote:
When you see an asshole say "Fuck you all day long" and if someone asks you to appologize for it, fuck them too.
Exactly. Very well said, man.Quote:
As for the existance of God, there is no scientific proof he exists. There never will be. If there was, it'd defeat the whole point of Faith. There are magical special things in this world that refuse to be proven, and there comes a time when the only point of proof is to satisfy the human need to know everything. Do you love your Mom? Prove it. You can't. Does that mean you don't love her? No, it means love is one of those special things that eludes microscopes and labcoats. Is that such a bad thing?
I told you. Just don't start talking snuff about Nintendo. Stone and Spo need to fire up mIRC and hit the #tnl chat.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Removing Saddam from power is a strategic goal. The logic goes like this: one of the (many) reasons Islamo-fascists exist is b/c they come from unhappy homes (the Mid East is effed up Big Time) w/abusive parental units (see: Saudi Arabia, The Islamic Republic of Iran, etc., ad nauseum). Now, if it were possible to lock up the abusive parents and (eventually) get freedom/democracy to the Arab Street, that will probably pay dividends way down the line b/c free markets, free societies and (real) democracy do not produce self-loathing, long-bearded, cave-dwelling mullahs who are so angry at the world and themselves they fly jets into buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteriousRacerC
Now, it might very well turn out that our experiment in Iraq will fail and that we will have so pissed everybody else off that we'll go down in flames.
But you asked "what the war in Iraq has to do w/the war on terror." Those are the strategic goals for invading Iraq.
How does that prove a god exists?Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
The more the merrier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
It proves that the universe could not have been created from absolute nothingness. There has to be something to set it off. I just use god to explain that for my peace of mind, and all my other problems in life. So... BLAME GOD!Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
No instead it creates self-loathing, cave-dwelling mullahs who are so angry at the world and themselves. So much better right? I mean atleast they don't have those hideous long beards.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Point, but I was just being an asshole. If we're going to talk about it seriously, then I'd have to say that, while this may be good reasoning to go into Iraq once we were done with Al-Qaeda, plans to invade Iraq were being drawn up before the word "terror" was introduced to politics popular in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
On top of that, if any botched war deserves mention in a War on Terror discussion, it is the one we waged against the Taliban and Al-Queda. Even if, and at this point even the most fanatical Republican has to admit that this is a very big if, there were real ties between Iraq and Al-Queda, there is still no excuse for skimping on troops and simply letting the mastermind behind many attacks against us and especially the largest attack on our soil, slip through the cracks. With men from Islamic countries detesting us even more than they did before we set foot in Iraq, and their largest rallying point still free, it seems like a rather large hole.
We went into Iraq like gang busters, and into Afghanistan with what almost seems like reluctance. Our own President's obsession has left their leader in the free and clear and, most likely, more pissed off than before.
So, tell me, how did the war in Iraq effectively help the war on terror? Is bin Laden the only thing we have to worry about? Of course he isn't. But he made it clear that he was an immanent, yet largely ignored, threat. That's completely leaving out that your reasoning was nowhere to be seen in the Bush administration's rationalization of the war, to the people.
What (truly) democratic society has produced a movement as dastardly as Islamo-fascism? Islamo-fascism is, by definition, radical. Historically speaking, free societies tend to mute radical voices. Why? B/c when ppl are free to do as they please, they tend to do what they please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
IRT MysteriousRacerC
I hope we can handle Afghanistan/Iraq at once. We very well might not. :|
Anyways, I'm glad we can agree about the strategic-ness of Iraq. This doesn't mean we should have invaded and it doesn't necessarily make it a just war. But it does mean we can discard the 'Iraq has nothing to do w/the War on Terror' silliness.
I can't stand it when ppl say the two aren't related. Reasonable ppl can agree they ARE. Reasonable ppl can disagree about what we should do about that.
I don't think that the terrorists are terrorists because of Islam, rather they are terrorists that were brainwashed. When people do something wrong and think they are doing something right, are they really terrorists or just fools?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
There are some white drug addicts that have been brainwashed by Osama through the supllying of drugs.
As for free societies muting radical voices, what do you mean exactly by radical? I come from a country that is considered free, but brainwashing of kids and abuse from the government(ie both sides) exists. Are american gang lifestyle considered radical?
Now they've kidnapped some Turks.
Turkey is a muslim country too.
Well, now we know they aren't discriminating against one religion... I guess. (Bloodthirsty idiots.)
Germany perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Oh and how about the USA(anti abortion terrorists(let it be known that i am against the liberal use of abortion and I am opposed to the vast majority of abortions, however indiscriminate murder remains terrorism no matter what the reasons might be), Mcveigh, several cults responsible for the slaughter of hunderds of people, CANF etcetera).
Irealand(IRA and Catholics).
Germany(Rote armee fraction)
Belgium(Cell comunist combatant)
Turkey(comunist liberation army and PKK)
Greece(the november organisation)
Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, South Africa, India etcetera etcetera.
Well considering they have routinely targeted Iraqi civilians and blown up the buildings of organizations that aren't affiliated with America and simply exist to help civilians like the Red Cross... yea I'd say that we've known this for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenshin
Abortion is NOT terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
The groups you cited are not, to my mind, "as dastardly as Islamo-fascism" b/c those groups were marginalized. Free societies will never be free of dissenters. They do not spawn mass movements that threaten whole geographic regions (November 17? the Militia Movement? the IRA?).
People often point to the Weimar Republic. I would argue that society was not truly democratic. It was plagued by reparations, an abysmally bad economy and a political climate that was salivated over by two totalitarian parties (NSDAP and the Commies), itching to do away w/any shred of truly representative government.
When people do something wrong and think they are doing something right they can still be terrorists if their intentions are to spread terror.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
And terrorists are by definition fools. They fight powers they cannot control or hope to contain. When they do win, their victory is Pyrrhic as they only bequeath their children more suffering at the hands of the giants they so rashly disturb.
These particular terrorists believe they are on a holy mission from God to wipe modernism from the face of the planet. Let us, in that benevolent way we do, grant them their wish to see God. :nod:
So what about the attempted genocide of native Amercians, slavery of black people, the Tienaman(sp?) Square massacre? As long as anyone sees themselves as superior in one form or another, you will get crap like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Yes... but those who attack abortion clinics are... they bomb clinics and kill doctors to scare other abortion clinics into closing... insiting terror.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Yeah, Palestinians... they've never been marginalised... never....Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
What the fuck are you talking about? The Weimar Republic was practically THE most democratic system ever made. It had proportional representation in BOTH houses... I was under the impression that the definition of democracy was being able to vote for representitives... I didn't know it also had to do with your economic debt and social climate. The only reason it failed was the fact proportional representation let minority parties have power; and the Ermächtigungsgesetz, which let Hitler take over after the Reichstag fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
NSDAP and commies? Communists were like the 4th most powerful party in German... you're talking out of your arse. The Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (a middle left party) and Deutsche Zentrumspartei (middle) had more power...
I don't like getting in poltical debates, but shit... if you guys are going to, don't speak out of your arses.
None of those came from truely free societies, which was his point. However, the degree of freedom or "democracy" is actually inconsequential. It's marginalisation or suppression (percieved or real) which leads to contra forces/freedom fighters/terrorists being created. The suppresion of Palestine is the origin of all this shit. Why do you think Islamo-Facists hate America? Because they're jealous... they hate Christianity? As if. It's because America has been supporting Israel as a metastatic state to have some influence over a region of economic importance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
If America never backed Isreal, we wouldn't be discussing this.
And all this comes from Hitler being a cunt and causing the fifth Aliyah.
Yes, God hates James Joyce, T.S. Elliot, Picaso and Malevic... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Urm I am not calling abortion terrorism, I was talking about the organisations that bomb the clinics, kill doctors etcetera.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Calm down. I don't consider Weimar Germany to be a modern, free society w/a healthy democratic system for a number of reasons. Most importantly, the society itself wasn't stable (see: economic devastation), it was coming out of a war and the centrists were never able to govern properly. Fascist and commie parties intimidated the populace and couldn't wait to do everything they could to assume power and suspend democracy.Quote:
What the fuck are you talking about? The Weimar Republic was practically THE most democratic system ever made. It had proportional representation in BOTH houses... I was under the impression that the definition of democracy was being able to vote for representitives... I didn't know it also had to do with your economic debt and social climate. The only reason it failed was the fact proportional representation let minority parties have power; and the Ermächtigungsgesetz, which let Hitler take over after the Reichstag fire.
NSDAP and commies? Communists were like the 4th most powerful party in German... you're talking out of your arse. The Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (a middle left party) and Deutsche Zentrumspartei (middle) had more power...
I don't like getting in poltical debates, but shit... if you guys are going to, don't speak out of your arses.
I wouldn't consider it the origin but it certainly fuels the radical fires.Quote:
The suppresion of Palestine is the origin of all this shit.
The Islamo-fascists believe in God, yes? And their version of God hates (according to them) modernity. Don't be silly and pretend I meant the Modernist movement in art. :rolleyes:Quote:
Yes, God hates James Joyce, T.S. Elliot, Picaso and Malevic... :confused:
How many of these organizations are there and how many have they killed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
can we get numbers on this? because i think you are overstating the representativness of these groups. they are completely outside of both the pro-life or christian movements, and have been roundly denounced by both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
It doesnt matter how many they have killed, fact is they exist and are just one other group within a democracy that commits terrorist acts.
Its just one example of dozens I gave that disprove The Meach´s frankly ridiculous claims.
The percentage is sooo much lower, though, which I think was his point. Obviously that wouldn't be an absolute.
BTW, eventually, one of these groups/people are going to upset the wrong person and even more hell will ensue.
No his point was clearly stated, he said that democracies dont bring forward loonies like that.
Yet the examples I gave were all from so called democracies and combined(second world war not counting) have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent victims.
Pretty compareable given population sizes if you ask me.
And French scholars said that 100 million people have died from Communism. And then you have dictators like Hussein and Islamofascists who have killed millions more. A bunch of looneys killing maybe 10 abortion doctors, then being caught and tried for it within society really cant compare.
But shit, America sucks, democracy is evil, let's give communism one more try.
You actually think that communism could work in a country with a population as large as China? You are kidding right? Infact the sheer amount of corruption in India's democratic government is causing a movement towards communism. That is not to say it is a good thing, but you have to consider how viable it is to maintain one is such large populuses(sp?).Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
You can't simply impose a new lifestyle without expecting retaliation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Way to twist my words yet again.
Ahahaha. I just had to paste this "reviewer's" insights:Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
---Quote:
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/.../stars-1-0.gif HAHAHAHAHAHA worthless nonsense, June 12, 2004
Reviewer: guerrilla_commmunist from Anchorage Alaska USA
Communism made the world bloody??? NO capitalism is responsible for more deaths than fascism and communism. The USA a bastion of imperialism and oppression has killed more people than Mao Hitler and Stalin doubled. Capitalism is a more warlike philosophy and the wars that are fought are soley for money. I dont defend the USSR it has commited many atrocities but not because it is communist. Name a capitalist country that hasn't started a war. Why we are killing innocent people right now and sending them to prison camps and torturing them for speaking against our nation in Iraq. We have the illusion of liberty and freedom but only for the 250 million americans out of the 7 billion people and the even more sad thing is that this has only been true for scarcely 40 years! Every capitalist nation is evil why do you think they always attack leftist regimes and support right wing fascists? Does that sound fair to you? no it isn't capitalism defends this by saying well we are just lucky trying to cover up the fact that they deserve wealth no more than the people we have driven into starvation and oppression. Every war we have fought was fought for money all the USA cares about is protecting its bank and corporate interests. The USA goes to war whenever are oil interests are threatend (Iraq and soon Venezuela) so which to you looks more reppressive? Communism is for the interests of the workers it looks beyond race and religion capitalism doesnt. Your book and philosophy sicken me you are a brain washed american whose only reason for critisizing communism is to defend your lavish lifestyle and easy living so you dont have to think of the millions of dead and impoverished people around the world that capitalist imperialism is responsible for. Maybe someday you will become educated and learn that equality is the answer and communism is equality.
Translation: "You're all just stupid brainwashed Americans trying to demonize and paint with broad strokes against Communism unfairly!!! PHEAR MY WRATH!!! YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!"
Eh, he's just a loveable misguided humanitarian, I'm sure, that just truly cares about the "peoples," or rather, the "workers..."
The Weimar Republic WAS a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
* All citizens had the right to vote for representitives in fair "silent" elections.
* All citizens had Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Religion, Property. etc.
* All citizens were deemed equal.
If that's not a free society, then I don't know what is. In fact, the Weimar Republic was more democratic than America. It had proportional representation for the legislative house, which means unlike in America were a minority vote is equal to no vote at all *coughNADERcough*, a minority vote does count.
So what is exactly your point? That free-democratic societies do not breed violence and "resistance", discounting those which have violence and things to resist against? Isn't that just a tautology, and not only is that a tautology, isn't it just obvious. If someone is neither spiritually, culturally or economically suppressed; what do they have to resist against? Not being repressed and poor?
I'm not dissing democracy in any way, shape or form; I believe in democracy with the full force of my heart, I'd die for it. But saying "MAKE A COUNTRY A FREE DEMOCRACY AND EVERYTHING WILL BE OK" is just plain bullshit. Liberal Democracy fixes a bunch of problems (cultural-political supression) that lead to violence, but it doesn't solve all the problems that lead to violence (such as economic supression), as best seen in Weimar Germany (a perfectly fine democracy).
Eh, I didnt twist your words. I knew what you were talking about. Any culture can breed loonies and violent, fascist groups, but that seems to be the norm in communist/fascist (duh) countries. Communism is awfully nice and makes sense when you read about it in a book but in reality it spawns this awful, awful violence and oppression. Same with dictatorships. That's whats been going on in these Islamic dictatorships for so long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
So yes while loony groups have formed in the USA, there seems to be something instrinsically violent that spawns from those forms of government which does not spawn from republics/democracies.
It's seriously really sad, and considering that for most of the history of time people have lived under dictatorships I shudder to think of how many billions of people have been killed throughout history.
Random comment: The Weirmar Republic is considered to have had one of the best constitutions in the world at the time. It is so a modern democracy.
That's pretty much the response I thought the information would get from this forum. If you guys don't want to read it, fine, that's your decision.
To the person who called my claim that some of the alleged 'hijackers' are still alive propoganda, take a look at this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm (more stories like that if you look around)
And for the person who suggested I read Dick Clarke's book, I'll say this: a former terrorism czar, and man who's been advisor to every president since Reagan, knows the score. That whole book is a smokescreen. They're using it to hang Bush and to increase intelligence agency powers, and to continue selling the war on terror lie.
By the way, I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, and it's good that people are starting to question the lies fed to the public daily by the government and media, but it missed the entire point. Getting rid of Bush won't change a thing. In September of 2000, before the election remember, the Project for the New American Century issued a report called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, And Resources For A New Century." It foreshadows 9/11, and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They still would have happened at some point even with Gore in office, as the elite know no party lines.
And I'll say it again, bin Laden was not behind 9/11. That famous confession video was manipulation. In an interview with Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat, on September 28, 2001, he said:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people . . . " (http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html)
The only evidence offered by the US have been videos or 'authenticated' audio tapes. Oh well, if the CIA says it's his voice, then it must be his voice, because we all know how honest and noble the CIA are. Gimme a break.
lol. name one forum where they'd respond differently. i'm curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakkal
Jakkal stop poisoning this forum with yer drivel.
Look at the date of that article: Sunday, 23 September, 2001
Of course errors can and have been made and yes those persons at one point were SUSPECTS, as far as I know though they were cleared.
With criminal investigations its not uncommon to have MORE suspects then actual culprits you know.
Seriously.
You know you're beyond reason when Almaci pwns you about something like this in a thread like this. Hehe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
November 17 is not a mass movement that threatens an entire geographic region. Neither was the IRA. Timothy McVeigh? The handful of abortion clinic bombers? Get serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
I'd like to add that there is nothing inherent to (modern) democracy that would spawn mass movements that threaten whole geographic regions. Or is there?
I think in my original post I said just plain old democracy. This being the internet and how inclined we all are to nit-pick over the slightest omission, EVERY word/phrase/statement/point needs to have (precise, exact, PERFECT) qualifiers on it. I've been trying to do this over the past few posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
I don't consider Weimar a stable, free society. But, I'm not against correcting my errors. Yes, AstroBlue is absolutely, positively correct. Weimar was, w/o question, a liberal democracy. I know this. In the interests of expediency I've been substituting 'democracy' for the society at large. I know better and I ought to be more clear. Sorry. :(
I don't think that political freedom is a sufficient condition for a free society, and Weimar is a great example of this. Despite its political freedoms (which gradually disappeared as anti-democratic groups exploited the privileges granted by these freedoms: the Nazis/commies radicalized the political sphere thru freely gathering in the streets...and intimidating the Social Democrats/moderates/each other). Further, I would argue that Weimar was not a free society b/c of the desperate economic situation. Politically free? Yep. Economically free? Not to my mind. This allowed fringe groups to gain support. (I would argue that Individual, Political and Economic freedom are necessary for a society to be considered free. Obviously these are subjective so disagreement will arise. I hesitate to speculate on the individual freedom of Germans under Weimar but I look at my readings on what the political climate was and how radical thugs - fascist AND commie - intimidated ppl to get an idea. Combine this w/a culture that until that time had no experience w/political freedom - to be fair, a bit on the local level - and I would not argue Germany had a general culture of Individual freedom. That's just my impression.)Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
I've shared b/4 how much love I have (none) for proportional representation. Weimar is another great example of how fringe groups can shout down the majority in a parliamentary system. Two-party systems marginalize the freaks b/c the first guy to the Almighty Middle wins. I realize that's irrelevant to your larger point about Weimar. Weimar was definitely a proportional democracy.
Almaci's distortions don't help me here so I will say again that democracies don't spawn mass movements that threaten entire geographic regions. I absolutely positively disown something I never called my own; the idea that there is never violence or resistance in free societies. One need only look at the years preceding the Civil War and the Abolitionist movement. It was violent and definitely a resistance (tho not against the right to self-government; just to a specific policy) but it was never a mass movement, nor did it threaten an entire geographic region.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
I remain unconvinced there is anything inherent to political freedom that spawns terrorism. Was there ever any doubt the (radical) Abolitionists were operating outside the political realm? They had renounced their lawful right to shape policy so that they could pursue bloody 'justice'. Did the political freedoms bestowed on Americans by our Constitution and form of government spawn the Abolitionists? On this same point, in relation to Weimar, was the NSDAP the natural offspring of political freedom or were there certain cultural conditions that allowed it to rise? Was the relationship between Weimar>>NSDAP causal in nature? (This would make a great essay question imho.) :lol:
Oh, no worries. Never thought you didn't. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
AGREED! :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
We totally agree. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Anyways, writing this post and responding to these challenges has been fun. It's also forced me to clarify in my mind what exactly constitutes a free society. Yays!
:oQuote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Stalin alone murdered 20 million of his 'countrymen' (a very conservative estimate). Chinese communism has claimed 40 million victims (another very conservative estimate).
Assuming you're right (I'm entirely too generous here but I take pity on 'useful idiots') about the 'tens of thousands of innocent victims' of democracy, and completely discounting the right-wing dictatorships of the last century, there is no possible way the numbers are proportional. No. Way.
In 1990, the US had +/- 250 mil and the USSR had +/- 290mil. 20% more in pop but 20x the victims IF we say the US had 1mil victims. Get real.
But if you want to put your money where your mouth is and volunteer to go experience the pastoral glory that is non-liberal democracy, feel free to defect to North Korea. :mad:
Consider this forum pre-owned:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm
:lol: :sweat:Quote:
I've witnessed this debate on Usenet several times, and it always follows the same pattern:
1. Somebody casually brings up the old factoid about how no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another.
2. Somebody jumps in and lists a dozen or so wars which have been fought between democracies.
3. Somebody else points out that those countries weren't democratic, not really.
4. Everybody gets into arguments over who was or was not democratic.
5. The argument fizzles out except for two guys continuing to argue over whether the American Civil War was about slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Well if you go that road I can point out that there is nothing in Islam either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Excuse me?
I AM a democrat and a firm believer in democratic principles.
Frankly I am insulted that you would think the opposite simply becouse I didnt agree with your stupid claims.
That has nothing to do with what we were arguing. We were never arguing whether democracies go to war, we were arguing whether free societies have produced a violent movement. There's a big difference; so just be on your merry way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
Then, again, what is the point of:Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
If we replace democratic society with the true words you meant: "a stable, free society". The sentence would read as: Stable societies do not produce violent movements. That's a tautology. It's like saying "black birds are never white".Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
All of Almaci's arguments against you have seem to come from the inference that when you said democracy you meant democracy, and not a stable, free society. Because true democracies have produced violent movements, that's a fact. Stable societies have never produced violent movements, because if they had a violent movement, they wouldn't be stable by definition.
So what exactly are we arguing here? War doesn't count as a violent movement? So Stalin's 20 million doesn't count? Does civil war count? Does the KKK count?Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
A "violent movement" can mean just about anything.
Are "violent movement" and "war" synonyms?
No, war is a type of violent movement. It really depends on what you mean by "violent movement".Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
EDIT: Oh crap, we are arguing semantics now. What have I done? :(
We are not going to argue semantics because there's nothing to argue about. "Democracies Do Not Make War on One Another" is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT to "Free Societies Do Not Produce Violent Movements". So just STFU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
But if you can prove that "democracies HAVE made war against each other", doesn't that prove that "free societies CAN produce violent movements" if you consider war to be a violent movement(assuming you mean "democracies" by "free societies")? Are you telling me you can't see the parallels here?Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
EDIT: Wow, it seems we have about 4 people arguing completely different points.
But if you can prove that "apples ARE sweet and juicy", doesn't that prove "oranges CAN be sour and tart" (assuming you mean "apples" by "oranges")? Are you telling me you can't see the parrallels here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
In a word, yes. The argument "democracies HAVE made war against each other" is an argument about democractic nations being on the same side and being inherent allies; our argument was about whether free societies (not democracies) within nations can produce radical violent movements. One is an argument on a global political scale, saying whether NATIONS will go into WAR against EACH OTHER; and the other is on a local social scale, saying whether certain SOCIETIES can produce RADICAL movements.
Try to compare the reasons behind the arguments instead of their superficial similarities, and maybe you will understand.
Free societies(not just democratic) are a completely different issue. But this argument seems to be about how American changing the Iraqi government to democracy will stop radical movements or something to that effect. Well that was what I was arguing against in this thread anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Let's assume, for this argument, that a stable society could PRODUCE a violent movement. That doesn't mean the original society wasn't stable. It's not a tautology b/c we're not arguing whether the society is stable. We're trying to decide if the society could PRODUCE "X" (a violent movement). We're talking about whether a black bird could PRODUCE white offspring (to get silly about it).Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
And one more time now, I do NOT hold that violent movements are NEVER found in stable societies. I hold that mass movements that threaten whole geographic regions are not found in stable societies.
Well, I'd consider 90's USA pretty stable. The American Militia 'movement' was in an otherwise stable society. I don't want to be stuck arguing no violent movements have ever been in otherwise stable societies... :confused: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Am I making sense here? I feel like I'm not getting through... :\
The US has destabilised democraticaly elected governments in central Asia, the middle east, central America, South America etcetera, in doing so they created mass movements that threatened whole geographic regions.
Consider yourself humiliated.
I believe the topic for discussion was whether or not stable, free societies spawn mass movements that threaten whole geographic regions. I wasn't aware we were talking about the (temporary/quasi-) 'alliances' the US has made in the past w/ne'er-do-wells like Noriega/Pinochet.
I'm racking my brain trying to come up w/any foreign mass movements that threaten whole geographic regions that we've created. And please don't say "omgwearmedOsamaversustheSoviets!!!!11". The radical Islamist movement was well on its way to threatening the Mid East (see: Iran; also: Anwar Sadat) b/4 the 1980's when we gave some guys in caves some Stingers (hardly what I'd call 'spawning').
(ADDED)
Columbia's pretty effed up these days, mostly b/c of drugs (which we really want them to crack down on). But did we spawn FARC? Is FARC a mass movement? Does it threaten the entire region?
Urm those too were only made possible becouse of Western meddling.
The so called islamic revolution and rise to power of Khomeini was only possible becouse the US helped the Shah oust a democraticaly elected government and become the local dictator for instance.
One could argue that those governments were hardly granite examples of stable governments. If the U.S. could destabalize an entire country that easily, they were probably on the brink of major change without meddling anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Equally, if you think that what now comprises the EU and what was the Soviet Union didn't have a hand in an equal number of similar events than you can consider yourself naive. Britain and France were in Asia *LONG* before the U.S. ever got there and each were guilty of the same meddling that you describe. Same goes for the U.S.S.R in Afghanistan and if you want to go back far enough, how about a little Italy and Germany in North Africa? How about Russian, French and German "interests" in controlling Iraq and it oil reserves? Funny how these never seem to get mentioned in any of your biased U.S. assasinations.
In any event, to pretend that the other members of the "seven" are any less involoved in dozens of foreign countries to protect and serve their own interests is just plain idiotic.
Come on. I think the Iranians can at least be held responsible for their own revolution. And the "Islamic rise to power" in the middle east began well before Khomeni., and was as much a product of British post-colonial diplomatic neglect as anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Holy crap. Vocabuilary respect +1.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
I never claimed otherwise so stop acting as if i did.Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
Smear and tear, hit and run, just like those guys who called me a saddam and terorist sympathiser while in reality I was the one protesting his actions as rumsfeld shook his hand, declaring guilty by asociation, asociations the detractors made no less.
How does it feel to be a propaganda tool Haomaru id really like to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
TNL has a lot of quality posters that post interesting content. Yays!Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
LOL. Almaci you really are fucking ridiculous.
Iran isnt even on the peninsula, its west Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo