10/17/06: A Dark Day in American History

[craigsub]

No, I'm attracted by your well reasoned arguments. You almost have me convinced. Perhaps if you explained it a bit better you would have me completely persuaded.

By the way, this is called an "ad hominem" attack. Look it up; it is not normally considered the most convincing of methods to prove your point. Perhaps you would have better luck arguing the topic rather than calling me names.

If you were worth having a discussion with, I would welcome one. And I am not calling you names, I am calling you a nut. All one needs to do is read the insanity and fantasy world stuff you are posting, and it is easy to see.

China carving out part of Southern California and giving it to the Indians ? That is not the musings of a sane person.

We only have trade embargos with "true communist" nations ? As there is no such thing, another argument that no sane person would make.

"Some of my best friends are Indians?" ... You made that up, meaning you are also willing to lie to make a point. That is something sane, rational people do not do.

Here are a collection of your wordings ...

1, Yes, and our goal is to spread democracy to the world in the "sacred" name of capitalism...

2. You can deplore the terrorist methods, and I do myself, but what other sort of battle could they wage? We have all the advantages. Our military might is unparalleled. They either have to fight any way they can, or just give up and let us convert them to our way of life.

3. Now personally, I think Bush junior had the hots to go into Iraq because daddy didn't finish the job there and, after all, they did try to assassinate Bush senior. But I think the truth lies in the idea that we're in Iraq because there's oil there. And that, I believe, is the true bottom line.

4. And yes, killing civilians is indeed a deplorable thing to do, but since we don't allow them to kill our soldiers, again I must ask what are they supposed to do?

5. I think if we try to kill off all the people who don't like us, we'll find that more and more people don't like us.

6. Place yourself in the Muslim's shoes. Your way of life, the core of your beliefs in how man has been told to live his life according to god's will is being threatened by a country whose technology and military ability is so far beyond you as to be nearly magical. What would you be willing to do to attempt to preserve your society?

7. They (Muslims) face the destruction of their way of life. With their backs up against the wall, what path do we leave open to them?

8. I like to consider myself a seeker for understanding. I think we have a better chance of achieving our objectives by understanding what motivates our enemy than by simply trying to bludgeon him into submission.

9. We MUST come up with a recourse for the terrorists. You cannot seriously believe that we can win this so-called war by killing and killing and killing? "The beatings will continue until morale improves!" The more people we kill the more will come to see us as a threat and the more we'll have to kill. There are 6.5 billion of them and only 300 million of us.

What part is sane ... the 6.5 billion terrorists in the world ?? In your own words, the rest of the world is made up of terrorists.

In your words, we seek to destroy Islam. Yet Muslims here are free to worship as they please.

Your words are not those of a sane person.

 

[rmongiovi]

What part is sane ... the 6.5 billion terrorists in the world ?? In your own words, the rest of the world is made up of terrorists.

In your words, we seek to destroy Islam. Yet Muslims here are free to worship as they please.

Your words are not those of a sane person.

I didn't say there were 6.5 billion terrorists in the world, you said that. I said there are 6.5 billion that are not US (OK, I rounded a little bit.) Let me explain all the steps in my reasoning. Terrorists killed a few of us. So we went to Iraq for some reason or another. Over in Iraq we're killing terrorists, but we're also killing a lot of other people and blowing up their homes. We call it "collateral damage". The people who live there call it something else. So they decide they have to join the fight against us. So we have to kill and blow up more things. So more people feel that they have to join the fight against us. Where do we stop? Where's your exit strategy? Just keep killing people who want to kill us and cause more people to want to kill us? I pointed out the number of potential "them" in an effort to show the vanity of that battle. Perhaps you don't believe that people will continue to turn against us if we keep blowing up their country. What would you do? Look what we've done because they blew up a couple of buildings. We've blown up entire cities in their country.

We allow the Muslim religion in this country. We don't allow the Muslim civilization. Suppose they decided they didn't want to send their women to school, or allow them medical treatment, or allow them to vote. Would we allow that? We believe in tolerance. They do not. Would we tolerate their intolerance? If not, then we would continue to try to change their society.

My words weren't directed against the Muslim. Bush's "axis of evil" includes non-Muslim states. I believe any of them are justified in thinking us a threat.

 

[craigsub]

I didn't say there were 6.5 billion terrorists in the world, you said that. I said there are 6.5 billion that are not US (OK, I rounded a little bit.) Let me explain all the steps in my reasoning. Terrorists killed a few of us. So we went to Iraq for some reason or another. Over in Iraq we're killing terrorists, but we're also killing a lot of other people and blowing up their homes. We call it "collateral damage". The people who live there call it something else. So they decide they have to join the fight against us. So we have to kill and blow up more things. So more people feel that they have to join the fight against us. Where do we stop? Where's your exit strategy? Just keep killing people who want to kill us and cause more people to want to kill us? I pointed out the number of potential "them" in an effort to show the vanity of that battle. Perhaps you don't believe that people will continue to turn against us if we keep blowing up their country. What would you do? Look what we've done because they blew up a couple of buildings. We've blown up entire cities in their country.

We allow the Muslim religion in this country. We don't allow the Muslim civilization. Suppose they decided they didn't want to send their women to school, or allow them medical treatment, or allow them to vote. Would we allow that? We believe in tolerance. They do not. Would we tolerate their intolerance? If not, then we would continue to try to change their society.

My words weren't directed against the Muslim. Bush's "axis of evil" includes non-Muslim states. I believe any of them are justified in thinking us a threat.

You cannot even read your own wording and understand what you are saying. If you look at example 9 that I posted, you most certainly DID say that there are 6.5 billion terrorists in the world. I posted an exact quote of YOUR words.

And ... from you, #10. "I believe any of them are justified in thinking us a threat ..."

Do you think Iraq was an islamic state under Saddam Hussein ?

 

[rmongiovi]

What a stupid comment,why should i fight tooth & nail about anything,who but myself is there to be pissed at.

Well, if you feel that a mistake deserves a lifetime of atonement, then I'm not going to argue with you. I was raised Roman Catholic and we perfected guilt. Personally, I prefer the path of forgiveness myself. I think where we differ is that you presume the cop, etc. is just a guy trying to do his job, and you elevate them to a level of innocence I'm not sure they all deserve.

I'm just not that naive. I'm sure there are some police officers who have the job because they believe in a life of "protect and serve", but I wouldn't want to count on meeting that one. The cop you're most likely to meet is the one who likes the job because it makes him feel important and he likes telling other people what to do without threat of repercussion. I really don't believe the majority of police officers chose that profession because they like the low pay and being shot at. So I think the more protection we have from that sort of person, the better. Ask the poor guy in New York city who got shot, what was it, more than 40 times for taking out his wallet to identify himself to the officers who stopped him? He was the guy they were supposed to protect and serve, but that didn't appear to help.

I firmly believe that power corrupts. I live in a country that was founded because the previous government abused its power. Just in my lifetime, I've lived through the major abuses of McCarty, the House Un-American Activities Committee, the FBI under Hoover, Nixon, and of course, our current administrations warrantless searches. This is not to mention the individual scandals of individual senators/congressmen. You give people you don't know power over your lives with no oversight, and then you wonder why they abuse it. Do you truly believe this won't happen in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave?

I live is a world where Murphy rules: anything that can go wrong will go wrong, and in the worst possible way.

But don't worry. You're probably young enough to live to see it happen. We can chat again is ten or twenty years and you can tell me if you like the way it turned out.

 

[rmongiovi]

You cannot even read your own wording and understand what you are saying. If you look at example 9 that I posted, you most certainly DID say that there are 6.5 billion terrorists in the world. I posted an exact quote of YOUR words.

Um, looking back at my exact words, I said "6.5 billion of them, and 300 million of us." "them" being equal to "not us". I most certainly did not say "6.5 billion terrorists". Apparently I'm guilty of a bad pronoun reference, but I am not guilty of claiming everyone else in the world is a terrorist (yet).

 

[craigsub]

Um, looking back at my exact words, I said "6.5 billion of them, and 300 million of us." "them" being equal to "not us". I most certainly did not say "6.5 billion terrorists". Apparently I'm guilty of a bad pronoun reference, but I am not guilty of claiming everyone else in the world is a terrorist (yet).

Just stop it ... you are now lowering this to lying about your own sentences.

Now ... the simple question ... Was Iraq an Islamic state under Saddam Hussein ? This is a yes or no question.

 

[craigsub]

What rmongiovi does not wish to discuss is that Iraq, under Hussein's rule, was officially a Baathist party country, with secular rule under Arab Socialism.

It was anything BUT an Islamic state.

Therefore, his premise that we are at war with Islam, and that terrorists must blow up innocent civilians in order to preserve the Islamic way of life is yet another series of lies which is being spread by people like rmongiovi.

 

[rmongiovi]

Actually, to the best of my knowledge Iraq was a secular regime, so we're in 100% agreement about that. I also said that I believe we went into Iraq because Bush Jr. had the hots for it because it gave him an opportunity to prove that he could do something his father could not (they do look a lot alike) and because Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush Sr. Other than that, I can't imagine why we picked that particular country in the Middle East 'cause it sounds to me like everyone in the intelligence community agrees Iraq didn't have anything to do with Al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks. So I'm pretty baffled what that has to do with terrorism, or my arguments. Will it make you feel better if you can prove me wrong about something? Got a bulletin for you, I'm wrong about a lot of things. When I make a mistake I try to learn from it and I keep on truckin'.

It is also true that I've said that I would not be surprised if any country in the world which is not based on some sort of democratic principle considered us a threat. I don't personally think we'd bother with them unless they had some resources we're interested in, but who knows? If some politician thought he could maintain power by drumming up a political campaign based on a threat in North Korea, or in Venezuela for that matter, I wouldn't put it past them.

What seems to have been lost here, in a pointless attempt to discredit me for something or other I've said, is my original argument. "Proving" that we're right isn't going to win the battle. "Proving" that they're wrong isn't going to make them stop. But I do believe that continuing to blow up other people's countries is going to strengthen their recruiting campaign more than it does ours, so I'm not sure I see how we "win" by following our current path. Instead I proposed attempting to understand the forces that have lead them to undertake the actions they have, and attempting to address those issues.

Do you have a problem with that idea, or do you just believe that brute force will somehow prevail where rational thought fails?

 

[craigsub]

Actually, to the best of my knowledge Iraq was a secular regime, so we're in 100% agreement about that. I also said that I believe we went into Iraq because Bush Jr. had the hots for it because it gave him an opportunity to prove that he could do something his father could not (they do look a lot alike) and because Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush Sr. Other than that, I can't imagine why we picked that particular country in the Middle East 'cause it sounds to me like everyone in the intelligence community agrees Iraq didn't have anything to do with Al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks. So I'm pretty baffled what that has to do with terrorism, or my arguments. Will it make you feel better if you can prove me wrong about something? Got a bulletin for you, I'm wrong about a lot of things. When I make a mistake I try to learn from it and I keep on truckin'.

It is also true that I've said that I would not be surprised if any country in the world which is not based on some sort of democratic principle considered us a threat. I don't personally think we'd bother with them unless they had some resources we're interested in, but who knows? If some politician thought he could maintain power by drumming up a political campaign based on a threat in North Korea, or in Venezuela for that matter, I wouldn't put it past them.

What seems to have been lost here, in a pointless attempt to discredit me for something or other I've said, is my original argument. "Proving" that we're right isn't going to win the battle. "Proving" that they're wrong isn't going to make them stop. But I do believe that continuing to blow up other people's countries is going to strengthen their recruiting campaign more than it does ours, so I'm not sure I see how we "win" by following our current path. Instead I proposed attempting to understand the forces that have lead them to undertake the actions they have, and attempting to address those issues.

Do you have a problem with that idea, or do you just believe that brute force will somehow prevail where rational thought fails?

Here we have a classic case of "Ok, so I lied about the USA trying to destroy the Islamic way of life, so now let us change arguments" approach.

In the meantime, we are re-building Iraq while the terrorists you support are doing the "blowing up".

 

[Buckle-meister]

I firmly believe that power corrupts...

I'm not so sure. I'm more inclined to believe that power simply provides the opportunity for people with an innate (even if dormant) corrupt nature to corrupt further.

...we are re-building Iraq while the terrorists you support are doing the "blowing up".

Well, I'd say that's the least we should do wouldn't you say? After all, it was us that blew Iraq up in the first place! Seeing as how we did the blowing up though, I think it's only fair that we rebuild for free. What do you think? Good idea or what?

 

[craigsub]

I'm not so sure. I'm more inclined to believe that power simply provides the opportunity for people with an innate (even if dormant) corrupt nature to corrupt further.



Well, I'd say that's the least we should do wouldn't you say? After all, it was us that blew Iraq up in the first place! Seeing as how we did the blowing up though, I think it's only fair that we rebuild for free. What do you think? Good idea or what?

Iraq was a mess long before 2003. However, I agree that we should help rebuild Iraq. And we are doing so, while terrorists are trying to destroy our efforts. Drop me a PM if you want to discuss this further, but it is a pretty simple concept.