I'm not sure I can agree with taking only a portion of the Declaration of Independence and using it to say that we can't defend rights our Creator has given us. We have a well documented history of defeating our enemies and then turning around and building them back up. I do not believe we would expend that level of effort if we did not believe that others did not have the same rights. We just refuse to allow them to interfere with OUR rights.
On that note, we are still at war with the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11. Military Tribunals have been used for decades to handle prisoners for War Crimes. The Left is doing this so that they can put the Bush Administration on Trial before the entire world, without saying that that is what they are doing. Everything is going to be put out there for the world to see. And considering how long that trial is likely to last, The One is probably expecting this to help the Dems run against Bush...AGAIN...in the midterm elections. He knows it's the only way they can maintain their majorities at this point...
Yep. And have you ever tried to explain that to a Liberal? Or better yet, a Muslim? I did try, and it was unbelievable. He actually told me that the laws in the Koran trumped the Constitution. I ended up telling him to take his butt back to Iran (he has a dual citizenship). He didn't take that too well...
Slow day for me today. Good thing because this is quite a load of shit.
"it should be handled as a police matter"
Kevin, once again your emotions betray you. We have stopped one major and one minor threat this year and it was all done through intelligence and police work. This is a fact. And counseling? AG Holder is seeking the death penalty. I ask you again--do you want to win?
Another question for you to ponder--are you certain you live by the quotes at the top of your page? By your own rules, either you do or you don't. Which is it? Several people here (Sarah, Ed) already don't because they don't believe in liberty and rights for all.
As to the three main complaints about trying KSM in a civilian court...
"The first two arguments strike me as understandable but basically wrong on the facts. The third I find difficult in some ways even to understand and seems grounded in bad political values or even ideological cowardice."
Argument #4: He is not an American citizen. He is a foreign national, part of an organization that has committed acts of war against the United States.
That's the bottom line question, and the one that everyone seems scared to ask: Was or was not 9-11 an act of war? If it was, he is an enemy combatant who should be tried by a military tribunal, as the Nazis were at Nuremberg. To send them to NYC to face a US civilian court is to state categorically that 9-11 was not an act of war and therefore KSM et al are not terrorists, merely serial killers.
Do you disagree with that assessment? If so, in what fashion? If you agree, please explain to me how declaring 9-11 to be a "mere" murder rather than terrorism and an act of war improves matters.
Another question for you to ponder--are you certain you live by the quotes at the top of your page? By your own rules, either you do or you don't. Which is it? Several people here (Sarah, Ed) already don't because they don't believe in liberty and rights for all.
And as Kevin has already explained, to forbid war due to that philosophy is nothing other than the "If you believe violence is bad, then you must be against self-defense" argument writ large.
1) He does not have the rights of a US citizen, and committing an act of war does not grant one such rights, or the right to a civilian trial.
2) Public trials in open court for many of these people threatens to expose our intelligence gathering sources and methods, and exposure will destroy those very important tools.
(Think about WWII -- we won that war largely because we could crack the enemies' codes. But that only worked because they had no idea we were doing it. If it had become publicly known, that intel would have been completely cut off. Instead, it was kept Top Secret for 50 years AFTER the war ended.)
The Democratic Party has a strong attraction to suicide. In my lifetime they have always been in favor of military failure. They have also grown fond of economic suicide which they are having a lot of success with right now with the stimulus – healthcare and cap and trade should finish the job like a double-tap to the head.
This boondoggle of a trial will be their most spectacular suicide yet however, legal suicide. This trial will be a three-ring circus – with New York back on Red-Alert indefinitely. During the election a year from now, this circus will be in full-swing unless the judge has dismissed the case. Either way it will be a disaster for the Democrats.
I wave aside the Cheka/commissar wannabe Markadelphia's irrelevant Alinsky Rule 4 idiocy, which I'm certain will generate more useless noise at the expense of signal.
I find the more interesting question is the exploration of this statement:
Quote:
-------------------
That's a critical definition. If a society truly believes that:
...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
then that society cannot wage war. It cannot even defend itself - because to take human life, to destroy property, even to take prisoners of war is anathema to such a society, for it would be in violation of the fundamental rights of the victims of such action. (See: the Moriori. Or the Amish.)
-----------------
I do not reach the conclusion that war making is fundamentally inconsistent with one's belief in LL&P.
This article's author argues the necessity of an outsider group, to which such rights do not belong, this group being vaguely defined as one' society, for lack of a better term.
I take less exception to the fact of an outsider group, and more with the manner in which this group is defined.
I believe a more principled definition of the group is akin to the old definition of "outlaw", as in, one who has placed himself outside the protection of the law as a consequence of his aggressive actions. There are other formulations, (Zero aggression principle, for instance) but the key element is that the outsider self selects through some means.
The status of outsider is bestowed not as a consequence of caste, nation or geography, but as a consequence of the aggressor's voluntary actions.
At the individual level of scale, the use of potentially lethal force in the immediate defense of one's LL&P in the face of someone whose aggressive actions place themselves on the outside is even more firmly established than our rather vaguely based collective/societal right to retroactively enprison them...in fact the whole question of the origin of the individual or collective right to enprison objectively guilty criminals is, I'm sure, a whole fascinating out of scope can of worms.
I agree that it is problematic to apply such status to larger groups, such as nations, or quasi nations, given the unlikelihood of unanimous consent, but failure to recognize and respond to aggression by a collective is not a viable option.
Although he was commenting on a different matter, Billy Beck offers us this valuable perspective, which strikes me as relevant to reconciling the paradox of war and consistent belief in LL&P:
(http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P4881)
Quote:
-------------------------
The necessity of war arises when people of evil intent join in a mass requiring a massed organization of the righteous in order to prevent the former from preying on the latter. This is a basic principle of human relations: there really are such things as bad guys in the world, and they really can get that big. The most important question here is organizational: how to meet them effectively. Certainly, no lover of freedom can abide forcing people into that against their will. Conversely, however, there is nothing wrong in individuals voluntarily agreeing to the project together in order to act for the value of freedom; no more than when they organize economically, through a division-of-labor economy, in order to produce refrigerators. Observe that the ethics drives the politics: the value of security against manifest military threat is the reason for the voluntary military organization of free people.
-------------------------
"Another question for you to ponder--are you certain you live by the quotes at the top of your page? By your own rules, either you do or you don't. Which is it? Several people here (Sarah, Ed) already don't because they don't believe in liberty and rights for all."
What do you mean by this? What makes you think we believe what you claim we believe? And what SPECIFICALLY makes you name Sarah and I in particular?
We have stopped one major and one minor threat this year and it was all done through intelligence and police work.
Police work is based on the premise of holding individual actors accountable for actions already performed.
Intelligence agencies look for intentions before the action.
The two are fundamentally opposed.
This is the folly of treating terrorism as a police matter, for the principle that applies is the terrorist has to do something first before the police can go after him.
Clinton ran his counter terror operations in such a manner, and that begot us 4 hijacked planes used as missiles.
Never give initiative to the enemy.
I believe a more principled definition of the group is akin to the old definition of "outlaw", as in, one who has placed himself outside the protection of the law as a consequence of his aggressive actions.
MarkyDelphia.....the Constitution is not a suicide pact. If you want to head down that road, you're on your own. You'll not live long under their "laws". Your santimonious moral superiority doesn't mean anything to the knife which slits the throat of infidels. Why don't you visit them and see if you can't talk 'em out of trying to destroy the very thing you hold so dear.
The 9/11 attacks were no less an act of war than the attack on 12/7/41. How hard is it to see that? Peace at any price? They were caught out of uniform and under the Geneva Conventions are (and should have been) candidates for summary execution.
"They were caught out of uniform and under the Geneva Conventions are (and should have been) candidates for summary execution."
What he said. As far as I'm concerned, this should not have been an issue at all.
"Holder has promised a guilty verdict."
Do you understand what U-J is saying here, Marky?
The US Justice system's reputation has just taken a serious hit, thanks to your guy Holder. That to me is a far more serious consequence than whether these vermin live or die. Tyrants and dictators around the world can point to that statement and say "See? America is no better than us" and in this case it will be true, on top of the fact that we're about to create martyrs for almost a QUARTER OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION thanks to now what will be show trials.
Bottom line - these men performed acts of war without wearing a uniform and are subject to summary execution according to the Geneva Conventions.
The circus that your so-called "right people" are about to undertake will have far worse consequences for this country than a bullet in the back of the head years ago ever could have.
Gotta have a little action 'afore they kills them some brown men. Sow thy kin be takin all serius like.
They's tough too, when theys panties is inna bunch.
/retard
"Another question for you to ponder--are you certain you live by the quotes at the top of your page? By your own rules, either you do or you don't. Which is it? Several people here (Sarah, Ed) already don't because they don't believe in liberty and rights for all."
Hmm. I though you were the master of nuance? You know, no black and white and all that crap. Obviously you don't believe it, so turn in your liberal card at the door.
Liberty and rights, while guaranteed by the constitution, must still be earned by not acting like a flaming retard to the polite society that you live in. You screw up, you lose them, the severity of loss depending on the severity of your actions.
I'd be curious to see the manifesto you claim to live by. I'm sure it's be a scream. Whether horror or laughter is still up in the air.
This following statement is in no way intended as an insult. I preface because on the internet it can be hard to tell sometimes.
I was really not expecting the Geek to make my "anarchist argument" better than I could have. I just... well, I just really didn't think he swung that way.
But, well, from the crazy end of the gene pool, bravo, Geek w/.45, bravo.
I, too, quoted Alinsky's rule no. 4 a few days ago when I concluded it was time to more adequately tie the radical Left to their the deadly history of their efforts: Radical Left = Sinister Wing.
I'm not a regular commenter here, but I think regulars should take note of the following and save this thread for future reference.
I'd say your resident troll has now openly admitted he is indeed a radical, when -- in his responding to the post wherein you highlighted Rule No. 4 from Rules for Radicals -- he attempted to discredit you and two commenters Alinsky-like.
Perlhaqr: You shouldn't be so surprised. The axioms from which minarchy and anarchy flow have a common root. I guess you could parse the difference here: noting that the underlying ethics of the power of enprisonment for genuine criminals stands on dubious grounds is one thing, concluding that therefore prisons should be abolished is another. ;) (And that's where my anarch friends usually get pissed at me, for insufficient doctrinal compliance.)
That question, incidentally, is a fun one to noodle. Not that I want to engage that question here, but I do want to frame it as an example:
Since our basic construct is that government has no power except that which was delegated to it, and since we cannot delegate to government a power we do not ourselves possess (example: we have no right to own another as in chattel slavery, and therefore cannot justly delegate to a state the power to either protect that right, or exercise it on our behalf), where is the individual right to enprison an offender found, such that it could be delegated? Related: In a state of nature, we can easily see a right to forcibly recapture our own taken goods, but where is our right to forcibly take other goods in remedy for harm done?
"I'd say your resident troll has now openly admitted he is indeed a radical"
ROTFL!
The correct answer would be that I am center left and many of you are just to the right of Attila the Hun. Thus, your perception is that I am a "radical."
Kevin S, I think the JD took a much larger hit with Mr. Gonzalez in charge. I think your prediction of "See? America is no worse than us" would be true if we sent them to a military tribunal.
"The 9/11 attacks were no less an act of war than the attack on 12/7/41."
Alright, then what country attacked us? C'mon, Eagle, think. Isn't a "WAR" exactly what Al Qaeda wants?
"Clinton ran his counter terror operations in such a manner, and that begot us 4 hijacked planes used as missiles."
Ah, so it's Clinton's fault, huh? Talk about derangement. By that logic then if there is another attack it will be Bush's fault, right?
"What do you mean by this? What makes you think we believe what you claim we believe? And what SPECIFICALLY makes you name Sarah and I in particular?"
Gay marriage. If you support liberty and true rights of the individual, then you would support this. Last time I checked, neither of you did so basically you are full of shit.
"Do you disagree with that assessment? If so, in what fashion? If you agree, please explain to me how declaring 9-11 to be a "mere" murder rather than terrorism and an act of war improves matters."
You raise some interesting points which illustrate the gray of the situation. And we all know how well gray goes over here and elsewhere on the right. I see things like this: OBL wants a war. He wants us to declare war on Islam. He knows this is the ONLY way to rally the Muslim world to his cause. There is so much infighting going on that only an all out declaration on Muslims will unite them. I don't want to give that to him.
Instead of bombing the crap out of them without thinking, we need to learn more about their culture. General Patraeus said as much himself in that I link provided in the other thread. We win by outsmarting them not by exclusively using force. The only tool they have is their wits and propaganda. They don't have an army or even a country so they know that this is the only way to win.
What frightens them more than anything else is Muslims moving here, starting businesses, establishing roots, and realizing the American dream is real. Drinking Coke and bullshitting with your friends over a pizza and World of Warcraft is fun! Making money and being able to keep it without being shot at by religious zealots and psychotics is even more fun. OBL and Co. know that the American way of life is the biggest threat to their cause. In the end, it will be their undoing.
I was going to quote that exact passage, but DJ beat me to it.
If I and the readers of this blog were literally "to the right of Attila the Hun," there would not be ANYONE to our "Left."
Attila actually killed people rather than argue with them, and he did it wholesale.
But he could have learned a lot from Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot
And if you represent the "center-Left," Marky, it's only because you and your ilk have shifted the populace a lot farther Leftward than we were a mere 20 years ago.
Something I've been describing on this blog since I started it.
Having "...learned a lot from Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot," and yet continuing to cheerfully follow the paths of those megalomaniacs, S I N I S T E R W I N G aptly fits the radical Left. (It's explained it a bit more at the link in my previous comment.)
That adds highlights your troll's sneer, doesn't it?
Gay marriage. If you support liberty and true rights of the individual, then you would support this. Last time I checked, neither of you did so basically you are full of shit.
The correct answer would be that I am center left and many of you are just to the right of Attila the Hun.
Yes, but you are the same person who claims there are no American liberals. So... do you mean center left like Bill Ayers, or center left like Dennis Kucinich, or center left like Nancy Pelosi, or what?
"Kevin S, I think the JD took a much larger hit with Mr. Gonzalez in charge."
How so? What "much larger hit" did the JD take under him than publicly promising/guaranteeing the outcome of a high profile trial?
Do you even get how bad that sounds?
"Gay marriage. If you support liberty and true rights of the individual, then you would support this."
That's called begging the question. Before you claim that we don't support their "rights", you have to show that it actually is a right in the same way that life, liberty, owning our own work, and self defense are rights.
So let's see you make the case. (Who am I kidding? Look who I'm asking!)
Here's a couple of things to keep in mind. If the exercise of a "right" produces negative or destructive results, is it actually a right? Second, is what they want to do actually and exactly the same as traditional marriage? Third, does wanting to do something automatically mean that you have a "right" to actually carry out your wants? Fourth, what makes your proposed "right" actually different from essentially similar situations which you do not consider to be a "right"?
Are you also championing the idea that heterosexuals have a "right" to marry their sister? Mother? Daughter? Granddaughter? How about someone who's already married? Polygamy? Nine year old girls? Animals?
It would also go a long, long way to proving that same sex marriage is a "right" if you could show even one country, just one country, which did not decline within a generation of accepting homosexuality as "normal".
Nice comment, but I think you could have saved time by continuing my thought and paraphrasing the next line, to wit:
"Just wait til he gets going!"
That being said:
If the exercise of a "right" produces negative or destructive results, is it actually a right?
Yes. The results of the exercise isn't the measure. I think you and I can say that the exercise of the 1st Amendment has notably been negative and destructive - but smarter people than Mark would argue otherwise. No matter what we say of free speech, it is still a fundamental positive right.
It would also go a long, long way to proving that same sex marriage is a "right" if you could show even one country, just one country, which did not decline within a generation of accepting homosexuality as "normal".
No, it wouldn't. It might prove that it's not as bad as some say and doomspeak. It might prove that it's not bad policy. (It would be a worthy subject for argument - in fact, a large part of the problem is demonstrated by Markaziini above - his intellect is so huge that there is only one possibly answer, and that's his.)
But it wouldn't, in fact, matter at all to the measurement of whether gay marriage is a right.
UJ, On the other hand, not having a right to free speech is guaranteed to be destructive.
You're pointing out that some people misuse their right to free speech. Just like some people people abuse the right to keep and bear arms (which is based in the right to self defense, which is in turn based in the right to life). Our problem with the MSM is that they've largely restricted the right to free speech voluntarily. A right does not preclude the abuse of that right, but the lack of a right precludes a positive outcome.
"No, it wouldn't. It might prove that it's not as bad as some say and doomspeak. It might prove that it's not bad policy."
It would prove that it's not inherently destructive. A state controlled media is inherently destructive, which is what helps us recognize the right to free speech. State ownership or control of property is inherently destructive, which is what helps us identify private ownership of property (as in the results of our labor) as a right. If homosexuality is inherently destructive to societies, then that would disallow it being described as a "right". That's why I say he has to show that it is not inherently destructive.
Wow, ya go away for a day and Marky spews all over everything again. Yuck!
Who says a we have to be at war with a country Marky? What exactly were the Barbary Pirates? A country? A religion? No, they were guys who eventually figured out that their life expectancy would be prolonged considerably if they stopped hijacking our ships and killing our sailors. Just as this bunch may eventually figure that out. It's unlikely that they'll be completely extinct as an ideology but I'd say it's in our interest to give it a shot. So to speak.
"And if you represent the "center-Left," Marky, it's only because you and your ilk have shifted the populace a lot farther Leftward than we were a mere 20 years ago."
Actually, here's the way things actually are.....
left.......moderate......right.
Moving from left to right we have communism, socialism (left), Democrats (moderate and slightly to the right), and the old GOP (right). Notice I have not included the current incarnation of the GOP aka the base. Why? Because here is their version of the same graphic.
leftleftleftleftleftleftleftleftright.
I offer as proof the acronym RINO. Either you are far right or you are a pinko faggot.
Eagle, so how do you defeat that ideology?
"Yes, but you are the same person who claims there are no American liberals. So... do you mean center left like Bill Ayers, or center left like Dennis Kucinich, or center left like Nancy Pelosi, or what?"
In my graph above (the one in reality, not Jonestown) Bill Ayers would be on the left, Kucinich a little more to the right and Pelosi would be just to the right of moderate. There really aren't a lot of people who think like Ayers or Kucinich. Most of the country views them as too radical and/or buffoons. To a certain extent, they are correct in my opinion. Pelosi, 40 years ago, would have been a Goldwater girl just like Hillary:)
"The fact that you can make such a statement without being in fear for your life gives the lie to that nonsense and you know it."
Hmm, and why is that Kevin S? Be careful in your answer (JLAQ).
And now we get to the fun one....Ed. Ah, Ed. You really walked into that one, didn't you?
"Are you also championing the idea that heterosexuals have a "right" to marry their sister? Mother? Daughter? Granddaughter? How about someone who's already married? Polygamy? Nine year old girls? Animals?"
Incest and pedophilia are not the same as homosexuals entering into a marriage. The fact that you think this shows how sub human you are. Gay people are not criminals, Ed, just as black people marrying white people are not criminals. Any consenting adult in this country should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult as long as they are not related (under the same laws we currently have.)
Homosexuality is a "negative or destructive result?" Not only is that completely wrong, it's also not for you to judge. There are several countries in the world where homosexuality is considered quite normal. Holland, for example, shows gay porn to Muslims upon entering the country to gauge the offense level as a warning that they might not want to live there. In fact, if potential citizens do not accept this or cause problems, in some cases they are not given citizenship.
There are many countries in the world that do not have the overly puritanical and repressive culture that we have, Ed. I suggest you get out there and seem them.
"That's why I say he has to show that it is not inherently destructive."
Ed, do you know any gay couples? Are you friendly with any of them? Close friends? We have a large segment of our culture that is gay. They live their lives, adopt children, run businesses, pay their taxes, teach our children, and buy insurance just like everyone else. This has been going on for years. Do you see any "destruction" going on other than their personal liberty?
You are still completely full of shit on individual rights as long as you stand in the way of rights to a segment of our population.
I see Mark has, once again, popped in from the middle of nowhere, picked one question out of the standing 5000 or so, and not even, in fact, answered it.
About typical.
I'd compare him to something, but I don't know of anything that is that simultaneously flawed and inconsistent.
Mark's thought process is a diarrhea you could set your watch to.
(the one in reality, not Jonestown) Bill Ayers would be on the left, Kucinich a little more to the right and Pelosi would be just to the right of moderate.
I thought there were no liberals?
Be careful in your answer
Why? It's not like you've ever been careful in yours?
The fact that you think this shows how sub human you are.
From the person who says that W-2 contracts are slavery, defends ACORN which so far has only found ONE person who had a problem with children in sexual slavery, "sub-human" is laughable.
The fact you didn't answer him shows that you're incapable of the thought to consider what he said.
Not only is that completely wrong, it's also not for you to judge.
Why not? Why are you allowed to and not Ed?
There are several countries in the world where homosexuality is considered quite normal.
And even more where it's not. So your argument (as usual) is pathetic.
We have a large segment of our culture that is gay.
No we don't. As usual, you're being numerically illiterate.
They live their lives, adopt children, run businesses
Well, not for very much longer.
Do you see any "destruction" going on other than their personal liberty?
You know, I don't totally agree with Ed, but he's at least capable of putting together a coherent argument.
Where, in the recent history, have those of alternative sexuality, had more personal liberty?
You are still completely full of shit on individual rights as long as you stand in the way of rights to a segment of our population.
Aaaadn you're still begging the question.
So who's more full of shit, Ed, who's coherently explained himself, even in disagreement with me, or you, who's made rhetorical error after logical error?
Adam, having trouble counting? I actually addressed three questions, the second of which had several sub questions which I also addressed. I also addressed three additional comments.
Facts, Adam...facts.
DJ, do you think homosexuals have the right to be married? It's a simple question. Let's see if you do as well as Ed.
So, still ignoring all the points made to you on your own blog?
What about here, just in the last week? I can see posts you've run away from like the little ignorant bitch you are without even having to scroll much.
And, no, you didn't address them. Addressing and answering a question consists of actually acknowledging that it has substance and requires an answer, not trying to deflect it.
Which you've done and you always do.
"Let's see if you do as well as Ed."
Ed has already ripped you a new ass, moron. Maybe you should deal with *that*.
"I can see posts you've run away from like the little ignorant bitch"
I've already explained myself regarding this matter many times. Apparently you still feel the need to respond EMOTIONALLY when you sense that I might be right about a thing or two. So, now I'm going to ask you...do you think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? It's a simple question. Let's see if you do as well as Ed.
Remember, individual rights and liberty are on the line...
Apparently you still feel the need to respond EMOTIONALLY when you sense that I might be right about a thing or two.
That's what you've done.
You've just begged the question and projected now.
It's a simple question. Let's see if you do as well as Ed.
Let's see you involved in the discussion without begging the question or projection.
We're waiting. Not holding our breath, though.
Before I agree to owe you any answers, I think I want to go check some threads, because I stopped counting a while back when I hit 35 questions that you'd run away from.
Repeat mindlessly if you'd like. But Ed's already called you out, and you've ignored that.
You're losing the argument right now.
Remember, individual rights and liberty are on the line...
According to? You?
Speaking of questions, I asked you before you asked me (just in this thread):
Why are you allowed to [judge] and not Ed? [or me or DJ or Kevin or Sarah or LabRat or Billy Beck or....
Yes?
"I've already explained myself regarding this matter many times. Apparently you still feel the need to respond EMOTIONALLY when you sense that I might be right about a thing or two. So, now I'm going to ask you...do you think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? It's a simple question. Let's see if you do as well as Ed."
HAHAHA.
No, asshole. You "explained" that you didn't owe us answers and then turned it into a projection of authority issues. You constantly point to your all-too-convenient life, which beckons call anytime you're called to task for your bullshit.
You can keep misleading yourself, Mark, but the fact is, you stomp in here several times a week, drop down whoppers of steaming moose shit, and then run away the INSTANT you are called to task or asked ANY question pertaining to FACTS, to DATA, to REASON, or to LOGIC.
Every time. Without fail.
Every time.
Yet you continue to post here. You don't even deal with the questions on your own festering hole of hate you call a blog.
The fact that you continue to do so and don't seem to think your insults, lies, and nonsense deserves to be backed up or apologized for suggests a several mental disorder.
Deflect all you want, but the fact is that you continually proffer bullshit as fact and then refuse to be held accountable for what you said. You don't *owe* us shit, but don't you ever expect anything but to get pissed on for acting like the asshat you are.
And yes, I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. As a private contract. I don't think marriage has any business in the state and I don't think the state has any business in marriage - it's a social and religious institution. Nice deflection there, by the way - it absolutely has nothing to do with what *I* addressed.
Unlike YOU, I can actually answer a direct question.
But you're too stupid to realize that we actually *don't* think in unison here. You're operating under some amazingly ignorant pretenses.
Now, your turn for a direct question. Since you think I'm responding emotionally (which I am - do you see me denying that?), you've decided to play armchair psychiatrist. So explain this:
"...when you sense that I might be right about a thing or two."
Ok, Mark. Here's the question: What do I sense that you might be right about?
And when I have *ever* expressed an opinion on any matters you've "discussed" recently that would lead you to think I have *ANY* particular view?
It's not me, Unix. It's you and everyone else here who stands for individual rights and liberty. You set the rules and judge, not me. I'm only going on what rules you have laid out for yourself. I've answered plenty of questions. Time for you to nut up and tell me if that only applies to certain people.
Let me help: Adam is ridiculing you. See, he, and just about everyone else here, remembers the past 2+ years and how you are as about fact free as it gets. Ergo, ridicule!
Once the facts start raining down on you, you run away. Hence, derision!
"It's you and everyone else here who stands for individual rights and liberty. You set the rules and judge, not me. I'm only going on what rules you have laid out for yourself."
And, once again, you're grouping us all together and assuming the evocation of one view or opinion represents unanimous, collective agreement.
Are large objects attracted to that sucking void in your skull?
Oh, he realizes it. He appears to think that if he just cherry-picks sections of what I actually write and ignores the rest, then he isn't guilty of the righteous slander I name to him.
The fact is, my interaction for the most part here *is* ridiculing Mark, and he's too damned stupid to realize that the only things I almost ever address him on are those that deal with his running away.
He's stupid enough to ask the gay marriage question of me directly because he assumes I take issue with what he's saying, not with his actions.
Because you have no integrity. That's why it's not you. You can't stand for anything, you have proven you can't be honest.
You're right, it's not you - because you've utterly trashed your reputation. You have nothing to lose. You have nothing to pit against any of us here.
You want to play, but you've got no skin to put into the game.
It's you and everyone else here who stands for individual rights and liberty.
You've never understood the concepts before, you've proven you're not in any way an authority, much less an impartial judge.
You set the rules and judge, not me.
Again proving your inadequate bona fides, you complain repeatedly of "different rules", but you cannot demonstrate where anyone is given different conditions than yourself.
So you don't know the rules. Nor do you honor any part of normal discussion. You repeat refuted and disputed points without hesitation, you demand to win the debate for your tone, and then you throw uninformed and slanderous insults in the next post.
I've answered plenty of questions.
Hah. Mark, people can scroll up and see that you're lying.
How many in this thread?
(Do you need me to count for you? I know that 22 is more than 15.)
How many have you answered and how many were you asked?
Time for you to nut up and tell me if that only applies to certain people.
Is that like "have the sack"? You know, when you made that claim, and then ran away at top speed? And you never had the "sack" to admit your error?
"How do you defeat an ideology?" Well, if you had been reading Mark, you'd see that was already answered. You reduce their life expectancy. Considerably. If the frequency of this occuring reaches out and touches enough of the "believers" of that ideology, they will either see the futility of it and quit or become extinct altogether. Either outcome is acceptable.
It isn't rocket science. Primitive? Yes. And it's how the world has worked since the beginning.
Mark: notice that you're the one going over the top with the macho references?
"man the fuck up"
"got the sack"
"nut up"
Are three of your latest. But they're always in threads where you are quite clearly trying to avoid actually stepping up and proving your argument.
Who's the one advocating "different rules?"
In the meantime, you could avoid the embarrassing spectacle of having your hypocritical words served back to you on a platter, if you'd stop being quite so stupid and insulting and stop with the ultimatums or trying to 'dare" us or "prove our manhood".
Besides, isn't that the last refuge of the bully once he's been proven an idiot? Is that really what you're trying to convey here?
"If the frequency of this occuring reaches out and touches enough of the "believers" of that ideology, they will either see the futility of it and quit or become extinct altogether."
So, you think that killing the believers of this ideology will cause them to see the futility and give up? Where is your evidence for this?
Unix, it's a simple question. Both Adam and DJ have answered it. All I have seen so far is this from you...
"You know, I don't totally agree with Ed, but he's at least capable of putting together a coherent argument."
First of all, where does that put you on the issue? And second, huh? According to you and many others here individual liberty, freedom, and personal rights without government interference are your bedrock principles. Those who choose to squash that, as Ed is doing in his argument, are failing to live up to this principle and are flawed in any argument they make:
"Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours."
Those who choose to squash that, as Ed is doing in his argument, are failing to live up to this principle and are flawed in any argument they make:
Can you define "begging the question" yet?
Or find the flaw in that statement of yours that negates the argument you make?
It's a simple question.
Most of the questions you run away from are simple ones.
And you owe me many many many of those - many of which contradict your supposed principles. When you're asked to clarify what you mean, or which one you're using, you just.. run away.
Before you presume that I'm being a hypocrite, you should tend to your backlog.
First of all, where does that put you on the issue?
It's been well explained. Surely, someone as good at "asking yourself the questions to find out what people think" should have no trouble with it. But first you'll have to find out what "begging the question" is, and stop doing that.
And second, huh?
Perhaps until you can understand Ed's argument you should refrain from lecturing others.
But I don't think you've got the balls. I know you don't have the brains.
Me:"Marraige is a contract between the parties involved, and who the parties are is up to the parties. The gubmint ought to have no say in the matter."
sack boy:"DJ, glad to hear it. I agree."
Me:"What did you expect, sack boy?"
sack boy:" "
That's right, sack boy, you ignored the question.
And yet, you claimed only a bit earlier:
"I've answered plenty of questions."
In the past two plus years, you have avoided more questions than you have answered, and by about two orders of magnitude. Indeed, your behavior in this regard is so predictable that it is standardized. In this case, we see, yet again, your Standard Response #1, the "I can't hear you" response. You behave as if a request to respond or to answer a question was not made, or that you never read it. This seems to be your favorite.
Is there any depth of hypocrisy to which you will not descend? Have you no shame at all?
Well it's worked pretty well historically Marky. Maybe you should read a little more instead of wallowing in your preconceived naive worldview. The example I gave above fits perfectly. As does the Moro rebellion in the Phillipines c. 1900 which has the added feature of a level of Islamic fanatacism which makes the current bunch look like pikers. It also worked pretty well against the National Socialists and the Imperial Japanese militarists although they had a state-run industrial infrastructure which was vulnerable to demolition. Fanatical ideologies all which only gave up by killing enough of them to convince the rest that resistance was futile.
As I said before, complete extinction of the individuals who subscribe to that ideology works too. If that's what it takes, so be it.
If in fact you're a teacher you have no excuse for this level of ignorance.
Eagle, you're point makes no sense. In fact, you contradict yourself by stating that the Nazis and Imperial Japan were easier to bring down because they had states. Al Qaeda has no state. It's an ideology that feeds on American aggression. Who exactly do you want us to "make extinct?" We've killed thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan. Have they given up yet?
Sounds to me like you need a read (or re-read) of the Guns of August as well as a brush up on von Clausiwtz which, thankfully, is required reading for our military's education. As he would say, if you win the war and lose the politics then you have lost the war--a lesson that we are trying to avoid now in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Granted, this is nitpicky.
But I think you mean "your". When you're busy trying to be superior, it helps to get the little details right.
But your particular idiom is to get every detail wrong, and then condemn those who disagree, but without correcting any errors.
It's an ideology that feeds on American aggression.
No, it's an ideology that feeds on the American existence.
And guess what one of their proofs of our hedonism and evil?
The tolerance of homosexuality.
So, in the thread when you've been trying to trick those who are noticeably more thoughtful than yourself into what you think is a logical trap, begging the question on natural rights, you then forget that to bring up Al Queda?
I'd love to make fun of you for it, but I can't exceed the hilarity of your own beclowning.
I didn't say that Germany and Japan were easier to bring down, merely that they had targets which because of their physical presence were targetable and supported their aggression. UJ has it exactly right, that our existance feeds their ideology not any agression on our part. Our support of Israel is an excuse. As was our presence in Saudi Arabia. Would you stop fighting a mortal threat because you're tired? No, we're still fighting them because we havn't killed enough of them yet to get the point across and they haven't stopped laughing at the naivite of the current occupant of the White House. Why do you think attacks have stepped up in Iraq and Afstan? They sense that they can cause us to withdraw and quit because of the dithering of the President and his lack of the will to win. Do you really think they stop because we want to talk to them? Do you really think that they can be negotiated with? It's the entire Western way of life they oppose including our resistance to their efforts to have us convert to their religion.
The the politics von Clauswitz speaks of losing can equally be applied to folks like you who seem to be afraid of the use of force anywhere for any reason. Your logic follows the road to serfdom or in the case of the Islamists, Dhimmitude if not the sword outright. As I mentioned in my first post above, if YOU want to travel that path, be my guest but don't look behind you for there won't be many of us willing to bare our throats to the wolves of this world.
"our existance feeds their ideology not any agression on our part."
That is true. But ask yourself this: why haven't Muslims in this country started blowing up shopping malls? Could it be because they have realized by living here for awhile that our existence is a superior one? (Note, UJ, that I am not harping on Eagle's grammatical errors but sticking to a debate on substance)
If you add in the aggression, it gives them more fuel for the fire. Now, I'm not saying we must remove force from the table but I am stating that is has to be used in an intelligent manner. And, at the end of the day, they fear our way of life more than our guns and bombs.
"They sense that they can cause us to withdraw and quit because of the dithering of the President and his lack of the will to win."
How do you know this? Do you spend time analyzing Defense Department data on Al Qaeda? This is completely wrong and based only on your ideological beliefs. Please take the time to understand that it is (and was) a combination of several factors that lead to outbreaks of violence in Iraq and AfPak. You are vastly over simplifying things.
"Do you really think that they can be negotiated with?"
Well, first of all....who's "they?" No, I don't think Al Qaeda can be negotiated with and that's why we run regular operations inside of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Then, Ralph, your previous posting is nullified by that statement.
How do you know this?
Because, Mark, it's true of human nature for thousands upon thousands of years.
No, I don't think Al Qaeda can be negotiated with and that's why we run regular operations
Shorter Mark:
I believes what I believes when I believes it and that believe is always the right believe, and if you disagree, you are a moron and evil.
You've contradicted yourself repeatedly in this thread, Mark. But that's par for you. Just as on your site, you're raving about corporate misdeeds... When they're doing what they've been mandated to - upon pain of force applied - by the government.
Completely missing that you've kicked yet another own goal, you double down and start naming other "corporate" misdeeds and what lobbyists are doing.. Completely missing The Point.
Well, you're doing that here, too.
You need to pick a thought, and stick with it. Defend it.
I know they've stepped up attacks because of the pattern they set in Iraq prior to the surge there. The US Military confirmed this at the time or weren't you paying attention. They almost succeeded because mindless drones like you were going to throw in the towel. The more attacks there were, the more Iraqi civilians and coalition soldiers were killed, the more noise you made for us to stop the war and go home. No not the same guys specifically, but the same ideology, methods and motives. The issue is EXACTLY the same in Afstan......security of the locals. Without it and an intelligent counterinsurgency program we lose. Petreus and McChrystal see this. Fearless Leader sees it but is unwilling or unable to buck the fuckwits like you. Thereby dithering. Clear enough for you now?
As for the definition of "they"? Come on Marky......does it have to be "Al Qaeda" the brand name to be relevant? You can't seem to let go of the old whine that "We're creating more terrorists by being mean to them". Wringing your hands and rocking back and forth in a helpless ball won't solve the problem.
Most Muslims in this country are here for reasons other than jihad. That is why we haven't attacks her coupled with the fact that the last administration figured out a way to find and stop plots before they came to fruition. Most who come here DO figure out that our way of life is superior.
Speaking from experience reading and commenting here, I'm wasting my time laying out the facts for you because no matter the strength or quality of arguement you forge ahead blindly unwilling or unable to acknowledge you're wrong. Not once.
"Petreus and McChrystal see this. Fearless Leader sees it but is unwilling or unable to buck the fuckwits like you. Thereby dithering. Clear enough for you now?"
No. Your assessment is largely inaccurate as to why the surge in Iraq worked. It wasn't the fact that we had extra men alone that did it. It was also paying off a bunch of people and what I call the Woodward strategy. Apparently they started using a new counter insurgency strategy that is still highly classified. To my knowledge, the only member of the media that knows the exact nature of this strategy is Bob Woodward who was given unprecedented access to NSC meetings. That's what did it. And I know this from a primary source although I don't know what the strategy was because I don't have national security clearance.
The real key in Iraq was the surge of ideas, not just the surge of troops,” Petraeus said. “Yes, the 30,000 additional troops that ended up being deployed during the surge enabled us to … implement time-honored counterinsurgency concepts more effectively and more rapidly than we could have.”
Multinational forces began living in the communities. They began protecting the people and securing their neighborhoods. “You cannot commute to the fight,” Petraeus said, and the command built 77 stations for coalition forces in Baghdad alone.
As attention shifts to Afghanistan, Petraeus said, people must remember that Afghanistan is not Iraq.
“All counterinsurgencies are local,” he explained. “You have to recognize the need for a truly nuanced and granular appreciation for local circumstances.”
Americans going to the country must understand the local customs and culture and the local power structures. “We are trying to help Afghanistan re-establish traditional ruling structures: the traditional [religious leaders], the traditional tribal leaders, who in many areas have been pushed aside, or killed, or run off by the Taliban or the more extreme leaders,” he said.
So, you are incorrect in what you assume Patraeus thinks. I know you don't like President Obama but you are letting your feelings get in the way of sound decision making.
"That is why we haven't attacks her coupled with the fact that the last administration figured out a way to find and stop plots before they came to fruition."
That's true. And how did they do that? They did a fantastic job of disrupting attacks by completely fucking up hirabis financial networks. No chest thumping. No guns. No bombs. Intelligence. As Larry Wilkerson has said, "The military should be the LAST tool we use to stop terrorism." He's right and he is a 30 year veteran with 1100 hours of flight time in Vietnam.
As to your last paragraph, I'm curious if my information I have listed here will enable you to see all of the facts. You are certainly entitled to believe the myth that President Obama is "dithering" but it's not grounded in facts...only feelings.
"How do you know this? Do you spend time analyzing Defense Department data on Al Qaeda? This is completely wrong and based only on your ideological beliefs."
You pathetic little dickwad, do you see the inherent hypocrisy in this? You challenge him on the very thing you do day after day after day. You describe him via an utterly perfect example of pure projection.
There is little about this strategy which is highly classified. It was published three or four years ago by DOD in a manual that was written or inspired largely by Petreus and those who report to him. He taught it at the Command School at Leavenworth so don't hide behind the statement that we couldn't know anything about it. Have you read it? I have and it's precisely what worked successfully at the tailend of our involvement in Vietnam. If you took the time to read you'll find that we had troops living in villages in Vietnam, giving financial and physical security to the locals who then began to take care of the local VC on their own with some assistance from us. But I wouldn't expect that you would think anything other than "Vietnam Was Bad" and nothing good came out of it. The fact is the template for the surge in Iraq came directly from those lessons which were subsequently put on the shelf after we left SE Asia.
I never said that only guns and bombs are what's neccessary to win this war. That's your projection working overtime again Marky. You're placing your Sainted Bobby Woodward on a pedestal. As if he authored the surge strategy. Do your homework Marky.
Who precisely broke up the Islamist financial networks? The Bush Administration whose cover was blown by your fellow travelers at the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Me blinded by ideology? Take a look in the mirror. Projection is thy name Marky. The last paragraph of my last comment still stands for all the world to see Marky, You've just proved my point for me.
Back to my original point Marky. Which you have still failed to acknowledge as true with all your windy ill-informed nonsense about the surge and counterinsurgency. If you kill enough of the Salafists, they'll either give up or die. Their choice and no tears will be shed by me either way they choose. KSM and his four buddies deserve nothing more than a long drop from a short rope and to be fed to the hogs.
"If you kill enough of the Salafists, they'll either give up or die."
I find this statement to be terribly naive. Hirabis have shown that they will not give up when confronted with violence. We may kill several thousand of them, weaken their financial networks, or break the will of many of them but they won't give up until their fundamental ideology is exposed as being highly flawed and psychotic. There are multiple ways to do this and none involve force.
We are engaged in ideological war. The weapons we use must ones that involve using our intellect which I happen to think is superior to their intellect. Well, at least half of our country has superior intellect to them anyway. Thankfully, that good half is working hard in our Defense Department at present.
Well, at least half of our country has superior intellect to them anyway.
The "half" that thinks not meeting a government defined standard of compassion should be a criminal offense?
The "half" that openly plans to bankrupt the coal industry based on known to be suspect pseudo "science"?
The "half" that plans to "increase choice and lower cost" by flatly refusing to even consider tort reform or allowing insurance companies to compete with one another nationwide?
Marky.....so then they'll die. You keep killing them until they're gone. THAT'S THE PART YOU CAN'T GET THROUGH YOUR FUCKING THICK SKULL. Maybe you need to read a first hand account about the Pacific in WW2 to see how one fights a truly fanatic and committed enemy. Yes it's an ideological war too. You and your buddy Dhimmicrats have consistantly forgotten or neglected part 1 of the two part strategy that includes both force and non-force. Without part 1 there IS no part 2.
The Salafists do some of our job for us when they butcher their own. See the "Awakening" movement in al-Anbar Province for details. It appears that the same type of movement may be afoot in Afstan.
It's entertaining to see that your reluctance to use force in most any situation because "it will make them mad" or "make more of 'em into terrorists" is pretty well destroyed by the recent events on the Maersk Alabama. Wringing their hands got another ship's Captain killed the same day.
Fearless Leader and the Majority leadership dithering and wringing their hands will get US killed.
Eagle 1
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-ill-tell-you-why.html (80 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I'm not sure I can agree with taking only a portion of the Declaration of Independence and using it to say that we can't defend rights our Creator has given us. We have a well documented history of defeating our enemies and then turning around and building them back up. I do not believe we would expend that level of effort if we did not believe that others did not have the same rights. We just refuse to allow them to interfere with OUR rights.
On that note, we are still at war with the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11. Military Tribunals have been used for decades to handle prisoners for War Crimes. The Left is doing this so that they can put the Bush Administration on Trial before the entire world, without saying that that is what they are doing. Everything is going to be put out there for the world to see. And considering how long that trial is likely to last, The One is probably expecting this to help the Dems run against Bush...AGAIN...in the midterm elections. He knows it's the only way they can maintain their majorities at this point...
"Your rights end at the tip of my nose."
How hard is that? I was able to learn it when I was 5...
Yep. And have you ever tried to explain that to a Liberal? Or better yet, a Muslim? I did try, and it was unbelievable. He actually told me that the laws in the Koran trumped the Constitution. I ended up telling him to take his butt back to Iran (he has a dual citizenship). He didn't take that too well...
Slow day for me today. Good thing because this is quite a load of shit.
"it should be handled as a police matter"
Kevin, once again your emotions betray you. We have stopped one major and one minor threat this year and it was all done through intelligence and police work. This is a fact. And counseling? AG Holder is seeking the death penalty. I ask you again--do you want to win?
Another question for you to ponder--are you certain you live by the quotes at the top of your page? By your own rules, either you do or you don't. Which is it? Several people here (Sarah, Ed) already don't because they don't believe in liberty and rights for all.
As to the three main complaints about trying KSM in a civilian court...
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/11/a_lot_of_people_--.php
"The first two arguments strike me as understandable but basically wrong on the facts. The third I find difficult in some ways even to understand and seems grounded in bad political values or even ideological cowardice."
Yep.
I find all three of them irrelevant.
Argument #4: He is not an American citizen. He is a foreign national, part of an organization that has committed acts of war against the United States.
That's the bottom line question, and the one that everyone seems scared to ask: Was or was not 9-11 an act of war? If it was, he is an enemy combatant who should be tried by a military tribunal, as the Nazis were at Nuremberg. To send them to NYC to face a US civilian court is to state categorically that 9-11 was not an act of war and therefore KSM et al are not terrorists, merely serial killers.
Do you disagree with that assessment? If so, in what fashion? If you agree, please explain to me how declaring 9-11 to be a "mere" murder rather than terrorism and an act of war improves matters.
Another question for you to ponder--are you certain you live by the quotes at the top of your page? By your own rules, either you do or you don't. Which is it? Several people here (Sarah, Ed) already don't because they don't believe in liberty and rights for all.
And as Kevin has already explained, to forbid war due to that philosophy is nothing other than the "If you believe violence is bad, then you must be against self-defense" argument writ large.
Marky --
1) He does not have the rights of a US citizen, and committing an act of war does not grant one such rights, or the right to a civilian trial.
2) Public trials in open court for many of these people threatens to expose our intelligence gathering sources and methods, and exposure will destroy those very important tools.
(Think about WWII -- we won that war largely because we could crack the enemies' codes. But that only worked because they had no idea we were doing it. If it had become publicly known, that intel would have been completely cut off. Instead, it was kept Top Secret for 50 years AFTER the war ended.)
The Democratic Party has a strong attraction to suicide. In my lifetime they have always been in favor of military failure. They have also grown fond of economic suicide which they are having a lot of success with right now with the stimulus – healthcare and cap and trade should finish the job like a double-tap to the head.
This boondoggle of a trial will be their most spectacular suicide yet however, legal suicide. This trial will be a three-ring circus – with New York back on Red-Alert indefinitely. During the election a year from now, this circus will be in full-swing unless the judge has dismissed the case. Either way it will be a disaster for the Democrats.
I wave aside the Cheka/commissar wannabe Markadelphia's irrelevant Alinsky Rule 4 idiocy, which I'm certain will generate more useless noise at the expense of signal.
I find the more interesting question is the exploration of this statement:
Quote:
-------------------
That's a critical definition. If a society truly believes that:
...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
then that society cannot wage war. It cannot even defend itself - because to take human life, to destroy property, even to take prisoners of war is anathema to such a society, for it would be in violation of the fundamental rights of the victims of such action. (See: the Moriori. Or the Amish.)
-----------------
I do not reach the conclusion that war making is fundamentally inconsistent with one's belief in LL&P.
This article's author argues the necessity of an outsider group, to which such rights do not belong, this group being vaguely defined as one' society, for lack of a better term.
I take less exception to the fact of an outsider group, and more with the manner in which this group is defined.
I believe a more principled definition of the group is akin to the old definition of "outlaw", as in, one who has placed himself outside the protection of the law as a consequence of his aggressive actions. There are other formulations, (Zero aggression principle, for instance) but the key element is that the outsider self selects through some means.
The status of outsider is bestowed not as a consequence of caste, nation or geography, but as a consequence of the aggressor's voluntary actions.
At the individual level of scale, the use of potentially lethal force in the immediate defense of one's LL&P in the face of someone whose aggressive actions place themselves on the outside is even more firmly established than our rather vaguely based collective/societal right to retroactively enprison them...in fact the whole question of the origin of the individual or collective right to enprison objectively guilty criminals is, I'm sure, a whole fascinating out of scope can of worms.
I agree that it is problematic to apply such status to larger groups, such as nations, or quasi nations, given the unlikelihood of unanimous consent, but failure to recognize and respond to aggression by a collective is not a viable option.
Although he was commenting on a different matter, Billy Beck offers us this valuable perspective, which strikes me as relevant to reconciling the paradox of war and consistent belief in LL&P:
(http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P4881)
Quote:
-------------------------
The necessity of war arises when people of evil intent join in a mass requiring a massed organization of the righteous in order to prevent the former from preying on the latter. This is a basic principle of human relations: there really are such things as bad guys in the world, and they really can get that big. The most important question here is organizational: how to meet them effectively. Certainly, no lover of freedom can abide forcing people into that against their will. Conversely, however, there is nothing wrong in individuals voluntarily agreeing to the project together in order to act for the value of freedom; no more than when they organize economically, through a division-of-labor economy, in order to produce refrigerators. Observe that the ethics drives the politics: the value of security against manifest military threat is the reason for the voluntary military organization of free people.
-------------------------
"Another question for you to ponder--are you certain you live by the quotes at the top of your page? By your own rules, either you do or you don't. Which is it? Several people here (Sarah, Ed) already don't because they don't believe in liberty and rights for all."
What do you mean by this? What makes you think we believe what you claim we believe? And what SPECIFICALLY makes you name Sarah and I in particular?
We have stopped one major and one minor threat this year and it was all done through intelligence and police work.
Police work is based on the premise of holding individual actors accountable for actions already performed.
Intelligence agencies look for intentions before the action.
The two are fundamentally opposed.
This is the folly of treating terrorism as a police matter, for the principle that applies is the terrorist has to do something first before the police can go after him.
Clinton ran his counter terror operations in such a manner, and that begot us 4 hijacked planes used as missiles.
Never give initiative to the enemy.
Kevin, once again your emotions betray you.
If you're going to try and act Vulcan-like, you might want to actually learn to use logic to get to your decisions.
We have stopped one major and one minor threat this year and it was all done through intelligence and police work. This is a fact.
You don't know how to use "facts" to make an argument is what that is. It's painfully clear to most of us.
AG Holder is seeking the death penalty.
Which we already had. KSM begged the military tribunal to execute him.
I ask you again--do you want to win?
Apparently Obama doesn't. Which is what we're complaining about.
What this will turn into is the worst media circus in history, while you'll be cheering as they attack Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld... Consider this.
Holder has promised a guilty verdict.
The minor problems of finding impartial members of the jury (maybe there were some people in mosque Sept 11, and didn't see what happened)...
But it's already been promised to be a show trial. There's no possible way that enhances anything for the US as a whole.
and it was all done through intelligence
Which is going to have to be disclosed to the defendants now. In totality. With people on the stand.
Since you're big on "facts", what of the "fact" of what that will do for intelligence operations?
I believe a more principled definition of the group is akin to the old definition of "outlaw", as in, one who has placed himself outside the protection of the law as a consequence of his aggressive actions.
Excellent piece of analysis.
MarkyDelphia.....the Constitution is not a suicide pact. If you want to head down that road, you're on your own. You'll not live long under their "laws". Your santimonious moral superiority doesn't mean anything to the knife which slits the throat of infidels. Why don't you visit them and see if you can't talk 'em out of trying to destroy the very thing you hold so dear.
The 9/11 attacks were no less an act of war than the attack on 12/7/41. How hard is it to see that? Peace at any price? They were caught out of uniform and under the Geneva Conventions are (and should have been) candidates for summary execution.
What do I get for feeding the troll?
Personally I liked George Friedman's summary on STRATFOR.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091116_postsept_11_legal_dilemma?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091116&utm_content=readmore
What do I get for feeding the troll?
Exposure to troll cooties, same as the rest of us. ;)
"They were caught out of uniform and under the Geneva Conventions are (and should have been) candidates for summary execution."
What he said. As far as I'm concerned, this should not have been an issue at all.
"Holder has promised a guilty verdict."
Do you understand what U-J is saying here, Marky?
The US Justice system's reputation has just taken a serious hit, thanks to your guy Holder. That to me is a far more serious consequence than whether these vermin live or die. Tyrants and dictators around the world can point to that statement and say "See? America is no better than us" and in this case it will be true, on top of the fact that we're about to create martyrs for almost a QUARTER OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION thanks to now what will be show trials.
Bottom line - these men performed acts of war without wearing a uniform and are subject to summary execution according to the Geneva Conventions.
The circus that your so-called "right people" are about to undertake will have far worse consequences for this country than a bullet in the back of the head years ago ever could have.
Dems loves them somes breads and circuses.
Gotta have a little action 'afore they kills them some brown men. Sow thy kin be takin all serius like.
They's tough too, when theys panties is inna bunch.
/retard
"Another question for you to ponder--are you certain you live by the quotes at the top of your page? By your own rules, either you do or you don't. Which is it? Several people here (Sarah, Ed) already don't because they don't believe in liberty and rights for all."
Hmm. I though you were the master of nuance? You know, no black and white and all that crap. Obviously you don't believe it, so turn in your liberal card at the door.
Liberty and rights, while guaranteed by the constitution, must still be earned by not acting like a flaming retard to the polite society that you live in. You screw up, you lose them, the severity of loss depending on the severity of your actions.
I'd be curious to see the manifesto you claim to live by. I'm sure it's be a scream. Whether horror or laughter is still up in the air.
This following statement is in no way intended as an insult. I preface because on the internet it can be hard to tell sometimes.
I was really not expecting the Geek to make my "anarchist argument" better than I could have. I just... well, I just really didn't think he swung that way.
But, well, from the crazy end of the gene pool, bravo, Geek w/.45, bravo.
I, too, quoted Alinsky's rule no. 4 a few days ago when I concluded it was time to more adequately tie the radical Left to their the deadly history of their efforts:
Radical Left = Sinister Wing.
I'm not a regular commenter here, but I think regulars should take note of the following and save this thread for future reference.
I'd say your resident troll has now openly admitted he is indeed a radical, when -- in his responding to the post wherein you highlighted Rule No. 4 from Rules for Radicals -- he attempted to discredit you and two commenters Alinsky-like.
Perlhaqr: You shouldn't be so surprised. The axioms from which minarchy and anarchy flow have a common root. I guess you could parse the difference here: noting that the underlying ethics of the power of enprisonment for genuine criminals stands on dubious grounds is one thing, concluding that therefore prisons should be abolished is another. ;) (And that's where my anarch friends usually get pissed at me, for insufficient doctrinal compliance.)
That question, incidentally, is a fun one to noodle. Not that I want to engage that question here, but I do want to frame it as an example:
Since our basic construct is that government has no power except that which was delegated to it, and since we cannot delegate to government a power we do not ourselves possess (example: we have no right to own another as in chattel slavery, and therefore cannot justly delegate to a state the power to either protect that right, or exercise it on our behalf), where is the individual right to enprison an offender found, such that it could be delegated? Related: In a state of nature, we can easily see a right to forcibly recapture our own taken goods, but where is our right to forcibly take other goods in remedy for harm done?
Wheee! Is fun!
"I'd say your resident troll has now openly admitted he is indeed a radical"
ROTFL!
The correct answer would be that I am center left and many of you are just to the right of Attila the Hun. Thus, your perception is that I am a "radical."
Kevin S, I think the JD took a much larger hit with Mr. Gonzalez in charge. I think your prediction of "See? America is no worse than us" would be true if we sent them to a military tribunal.
"The 9/11 attacks were no less an act of war than the attack on 12/7/41."
Alright, then what country attacked us? C'mon, Eagle, think. Isn't a "WAR" exactly what Al Qaeda wants?
"Clinton ran his counter terror operations in such a manner, and that begot us 4 hijacked planes used as missiles."
Ah, so it's Clinton's fault, huh? Talk about derangement. By that logic then if there is another attack it will be Bush's fault, right?
"What do you mean by this? What makes you think we believe what you claim we believe? And what SPECIFICALLY makes you name Sarah and I in particular?"
Gay marriage. If you support liberty and true rights of the individual, then you would support this. Last time I checked, neither of you did so basically you are full of shit.
"Do you disagree with that assessment? If so, in what fashion? If you agree, please explain to me how declaring 9-11 to be a "mere" murder rather than terrorism and an act of war improves matters."
You raise some interesting points which illustrate the gray of the situation. And we all know how well gray goes over here and elsewhere on the right. I see things like this: OBL wants a war. He wants us to declare war on Islam. He knows this is the ONLY way to rally the Muslim world to his cause. There is so much infighting going on that only an all out declaration on Muslims will unite them. I don't want to give that to him.
Instead of bombing the crap out of them without thinking, we need to learn more about their culture. General Patraeus said as much himself in that I link provided in the other thread. We win by outsmarting them not by exclusively using force. The only tool they have is their wits and propaganda. They don't have an army or even a country so they know that this is the only way to win.
What frightens them more than anything else is Muslims moving here, starting businesses, establishing roots, and realizing the American dream is real. Drinking Coke and bullshitting with your friends over a pizza and World of Warcraft is fun! Making money and being able to keep it without being shot at by religious zealots and psychotics is even more fun. OBL and Co. know that the American way of life is the biggest threat to their cause. In the end, it will be their undoing.
And some here want to shit all over that?
"The correct answer would be that I am center left and many of you are just to the right of Attila the Hun."
Don't insult our intelligence, troll boy. Credibility, remember?
Marxy, do learn to keep your mouth shut when the adults are talking.
I was going to quote that exact passage, but DJ beat me to it.
If I and the readers of this blog were literally "to the right of Attila the Hun," there would not be ANYONE to our "Left."
Attila actually killed people rather than argue with them, and he did it wholesale.
But he could have learned a lot from Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot
And if you represent the "center-Left," Marky, it's only because you and your ilk have shifted the populace a lot farther Leftward than we were a mere 20 years ago.
Something I've been describing on this blog since I started it.
Kevin,
Having "...learned a lot from Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot," and yet continuing to cheerfully follow the paths of those megalomaniacs, S I N I S T E R W I N G aptly fits the radical Left. (It's explained it a bit more at the link in my previous comment.)
That adds highlights your troll's sneer, doesn't it?
Arrggh.
(It's explained a bit more at the link in my previous comment.)
That adds highlights to your troll's sneer, doesn't it?
Gay marriage. If you support liberty and true rights of the individual, then you would support this. Last time I checked, neither of you did so basically you are full of shit.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
The correct answer would be that I am center left and many of you are just to the right of Attila the Hun.
Yes, but you are the same person who claims there are no American liberals. So... do you mean center left like Bill Ayers, or center left like Dennis Kucinich, or center left like Nancy Pelosi, or what?
Troll boy, it would be a good thing if you would build an outhouse. This (almost) daily shit in Kevin's parlor got old long ago.
"Kevin S, I think the JD took a much larger hit with Mr. Gonzalez in charge."
How so? What "much larger hit" did the JD take under him than publicly promising/guaranteeing the outcome of a high profile trial?
Do you even get how bad that sounds?
"The correct answer would be that I am center left and many of you are just to the right of Attila the Hun."
The fact that you can make such a statement without being in fear for your life gives the lie to that nonsense and you know it.
"Gay marriage. If you support liberty and true rights of the individual, then you would support this."
That's called begging the question. Before you claim that we don't support their "rights", you have to show that it actually is a right in the same way that life, liberty, owning our own work, and self defense are rights.
So let's see you make the case. (Who am I kidding? Look who I'm asking!)
Here's a couple of things to keep in mind. If the exercise of a "right" produces negative or destructive results, is it actually a right? Second, is what they want to do actually and exactly the same as traditional marriage? Third, does wanting to do something automatically mean that you have a "right" to actually carry out your wants? Fourth, what makes your proposed "right" actually different from essentially similar situations which you do not consider to be a "right"?
Are you also championing the idea that heterosexuals have a "right" to marry their sister? Mother? Daughter? Granddaughter? How about someone who's already married? Polygamy? Nine year old girls? Animals?
It would also go a long, long way to proving that same sex marriage is a "right" if you could show even one country, just one country, which did not decline within a generation of accepting homosexuality as "normal".
Ed:
Nice comment, but I think you could have saved time by continuing my thought and paraphrasing the next line, to wit:
"Just wait til he gets going!"
That being said:
If the exercise of a "right" produces negative or destructive results, is it actually a right?
Yes. The results of the exercise isn't the measure. I think you and I can say that the exercise of the 1st Amendment has notably been negative and destructive - but smarter people than Mark would argue otherwise. No matter what we say of free speech, it is still a fundamental positive right.
It would also go a long, long way to proving that same sex marriage is a "right" if you could show even one country, just one country, which did not decline within a generation of accepting homosexuality as "normal".
No, it wouldn't. It might prove that it's not as bad as some say and doomspeak. It might prove that it's not bad policy. (It would be a worthy subject for argument - in fact, a large part of the problem is demonstrated by Markaziini above - his intellect is so huge that there is only one possibly answer, and that's his.)
But it wouldn't, in fact, matter at all to the measurement of whether gay marriage is a right.
Whoops.
I think you and I can say that the exercise of the 1st Amendment ^ by the mainstream media has notably been negative and destructive
UJ, On the other hand, not having a right to free speech is guaranteed to be destructive.
You're pointing out that some people misuse their right to free speech. Just like some people people abuse the right to keep and bear arms (which is based in the right to self defense, which is in turn based in the right to life). Our problem with the MSM is that they've largely restricted the right to free speech voluntarily. A right does not preclude the abuse of that right, but the lack of a right precludes a positive outcome.
"No, it wouldn't. It might prove that it's not as bad as some say and doomspeak. It might prove that it's not bad policy."
It would prove that it's not inherently destructive. A state controlled media is inherently destructive, which is what helps us recognize the right to free speech. State ownership or control of property is inherently destructive, which is what helps us identify private ownership of property (as in the results of our labor) as a right. If homosexuality is inherently destructive to societies, then that would disallow it being described as a "right". That's why I say he has to show that it is not inherently destructive.
Wow, ya go away for a day and Marky spews all over everything again. Yuck!
Who says a we have to be at war with a country Marky? What exactly were the Barbary Pirates? A country? A religion? No, they were guys who eventually figured out that their life expectancy would be prolonged considerably if they stopped hijacking our ships and killing our sailors. Just as this bunch may eventually figure that out. It's unlikely that they'll be completely extinct as an ideology but I'd say it's in our interest to give it a shot. So to speak.
Eagle 1
"And if you represent the "center-Left," Marky, it's only because you and your ilk have shifted the populace a lot farther Leftward than we were a mere 20 years ago."
Actually, here's the way things actually are.....
left.......moderate......right.
Moving from left to right we have communism, socialism (left), Democrats (moderate and slightly to the right), and the old GOP (right). Notice I have not included the current incarnation of the GOP aka the base. Why? Because here is their version of the same graphic.
leftleftleftleftleftleftleftleftright.
I offer as proof the acronym RINO. Either you are far right or you are a pinko faggot.
Eagle, so how do you defeat that ideology?
"Yes, but you are the same person who claims there are no American liberals. So... do you mean center left like Bill Ayers, or center left like Dennis Kucinich, or center left like Nancy Pelosi, or what?"
In my graph above (the one in reality, not Jonestown) Bill Ayers would be on the left, Kucinich a little more to the right and Pelosi would be just to the right of moderate. There really aren't a lot of people who think like Ayers or Kucinich. Most of the country views them as too radical and/or buffoons. To a certain extent, they are correct in my opinion. Pelosi, 40 years ago, would have been a Goldwater girl just like Hillary:)
"The fact that you can make such a statement without being in fear for your life gives the lie to that nonsense and you know it."
Hmm, and why is that Kevin S? Be careful in your answer (JLAQ).
And now we get to the fun one....Ed. Ah, Ed. You really walked into that one, didn't you?
"Are you also championing the idea that heterosexuals have a "right" to marry their sister? Mother? Daughter? Granddaughter? How about someone who's already married? Polygamy? Nine year old girls? Animals?"
Incest and pedophilia are not the same as homosexuals entering into a marriage. The fact that you think this shows how sub human you are. Gay people are not criminals, Ed, just as black people marrying white people are not criminals. Any consenting adult in this country should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult as long as they are not related (under the same laws we currently have.)
Homosexuality is a "negative or destructive result?" Not only is that completely wrong, it's also not for you to judge. There are several countries in the world where homosexuality is considered quite normal. Holland, for example, shows gay porn to Muslims upon entering the country to gauge the offense level as a warning that they might not want to live there. In fact, if potential citizens do not accept this or cause problems, in some cases they are not given citizenship.
There are many countries in the world that do not have the overly puritanical and repressive culture that we have, Ed. I suggest you get out there and seem them.
"That's why I say he has to show that it is not inherently destructive."
Ed, do you know any gay couples? Are you friendly with any of them? Close friends? We have a large segment of our culture that is gay. They live their lives, adopt children, run businesses, pay their taxes, teach our children, and buy insurance just like everyone else. This has been going on for years. Do you see any "destruction" going on other than their personal liberty?
You are still completely full of shit on individual rights as long as you stand in the way of rights to a segment of our population.
One more thing to add to my politically ideology graph above. Fascism would be at the "t." part of "right" :)
I see Mark has, once again, popped in from the middle of nowhere, picked one question out of the standing 5000 or so, and not even, in fact, answered it.
About typical.
I'd compare him to something, but I don't know of anything that is that simultaneously flawed and inconsistent.
Mark's thought process is a diarrhea you could set your watch to.
(the one in reality, not Jonestown) Bill Ayers would be on the left, Kucinich a little more to the right and Pelosi would be just to the right of moderate.
I thought there were no liberals?
Be careful in your answer
Why? It's not like you've ever been careful in yours?
The fact that you think this shows how sub human you are.
From the person who says that W-2 contracts are slavery, defends ACORN which so far has only found ONE person who had a problem with children in sexual slavery, "sub-human" is laughable.
The fact you didn't answer him shows that you're incapable of the thought to consider what he said.
Not only is that completely wrong, it's also not for you to judge.
Why not? Why are you allowed to and not Ed?
There are several countries in the world where homosexuality is considered quite normal.
And even more where it's not. So your argument (as usual) is pathetic.
We have a large segment of our culture that is gay.
No we don't. As usual, you're being numerically illiterate.
They live their lives, adopt children, run businesses
Well, not for very much longer.
Do you see any "destruction" going on other than their personal liberty?
You know, I don't totally agree with Ed, but he's at least capable of putting together a coherent argument.
Where, in the recent history, have those of alternative sexuality, had more personal liberty?
You are still completely full of shit on individual rights as long as you stand in the way of rights to a segment of our population.
Aaaadn you're still begging the question.
So who's more full of shit, Ed, who's coherently explained himself, even in disagreement with me, or you, who's made rhetorical error after logical error?
"You are still completely full of shit on individual rights as long as you stand in the way of rights to a segment of our population."
Now, why does that stand out, teacher boy? Because, yet again, it is called begging the question. which Ed chewed on your ass about only this morning. As usual, you didn't learn a goddamned thing from it.
Adam, having trouble counting? I actually addressed three questions, the second of which had several sub questions which I also addressed. I also addressed three additional comments.
Facts, Adam...facts.
DJ, do you think homosexuals have the right to be married? It's a simple question. Let's see if you do as well as Ed.
"Facts, Adam...facts."
Wow. That's fucking hilarious.
So, still ignoring all the points made to you on your own blog?
What about here, just in the last week? I can see posts you've run away from like the little ignorant bitch you are without even having to scroll much.
And, no, you didn't address them. Addressing and answering a question consists of actually acknowledging that it has substance and requires an answer, not trying to deflect it.
Which you've done and you always do.
"Let's see if you do as well as Ed."
Ed has already ripped you a new ass, moron. Maybe you should deal with *that*.
Marxy's Six Sigma approach to being wrong is paying off!
Facts, Adam...facts.
What facts have you addressed?
(Other than some laughably wrong ones, such as the "large segment" comment.)
It's a simple question. Let's see if you do as well as Ed.
So far you haven't.
"I can see posts you've run away from like the little ignorant bitch"
I've already explained myself regarding this matter many times. Apparently you still feel the need to respond EMOTIONALLY when you sense that I might be right about a thing or two. So, now I'm going to ask you...do you think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? It's a simple question. Let's see if you do as well as Ed.
Remember, individual rights and liberty are on the line...
Same question for you as well, Unix.
Apparently you still feel the need to respond EMOTIONALLY when you sense that I might be right about a thing or two.
That's what you've done.
You've just begged the question and projected now.
It's a simple question. Let's see if you do as well as Ed.
Let's see you involved in the discussion without begging the question or projection.
We're waiting. Not holding our breath, though.
Before I agree to owe you any answers, I think I want to go check some threads, because I stopped counting a while back when I hit 35 questions that you'd run away from.
Repeat mindlessly if you'd like. But Ed's already called you out, and you've ignored that.
You're losing the argument right now.
Remember, individual rights and liberty are on the line...
According to? You?
Speaking of questions, I asked you before you asked me (just in this thread):
Why are you allowed to [judge] and not Ed? [or me or DJ or Kevin or Sarah or LabRat or Billy Beck or....
Yes?
Oh, and no, Ralph, I'm not looking over there for the Pony.
"I've already explained myself regarding this matter many times. Apparently you still feel the need to respond EMOTIONALLY when you sense that I might be right about a thing or two. So, now I'm going to ask you...do you think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? It's a simple question. Let's see if you do as well as Ed."
HAHAHA.
No, asshole. You "explained" that you didn't owe us answers and then turned it into a projection of authority issues. You constantly point to your all-too-convenient life, which beckons call anytime you're called to task for your bullshit.
You can keep misleading yourself, Mark, but the fact is, you stomp in here several times a week, drop down whoppers of steaming moose shit, and then run away the INSTANT you are called to task or asked ANY question pertaining to FACTS, to DATA, to REASON, or to LOGIC.
Every time. Without fail.
Every time.
Yet you continue to post here. You don't even deal with the questions on your own festering hole of hate you call a blog.
The fact that you continue to do so and don't seem to think your insults, lies, and nonsense deserves to be backed up or apologized for suggests a several mental disorder.
Deflect all you want, but the fact is that you continually proffer bullshit as fact and then refuse to be held accountable for what you said. You don't *owe* us shit, but don't you ever expect anything but to get pissed on for acting like the asshat you are.
And yes, I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. As a private contract. I don't think marriage has any business in the state and I don't think the state has any business in marriage - it's a social and religious institution. Nice deflection there, by the way - it absolutely has nothing to do with what *I* addressed.
Unlike YOU, I can actually answer a direct question.
But you're too stupid to realize that we actually *don't* think in unison here. You're operating under some amazingly ignorant pretenses.
Now, your turn for a direct question. Since you think I'm responding emotionally (which I am - do you see me denying that?), you've decided to play armchair psychiatrist. So explain this:
"...when you sense that I might be right about a thing or two."
Ok, Mark. Here's the question: What do I sense that you might be right about?
And when I have *ever* expressed an opinion on any matters you've "discussed" recently that would lead you to think I have *ANY* particular view?
"Yes?"
It's not me, Unix. It's you and everyone else here who stands for individual rights and liberty. You set the rules and judge, not me. I'm only going on what rules you have laid out for yourself. I've answered plenty of questions. Time for you to nut up and tell me if that only applies to certain people.
At least Adam answered the question. I guess that's a start.
Marxy, your 'derision' detector is on the fritz.
Let me help: Adam is ridiculing you. See, he, and just about everyone else here, remembers the past 2+ years and how you are as about fact free as it gets. Ergo, ridicule!
Once the facts start raining down on you, you run away. Hence, derision!
"It's you and everyone else here who stands for individual rights and liberty. You set the rules and judge, not me. I'm only going on what rules you have laid out for yourself."
And, once again, you're grouping us all together and assuming the evocation of one view or opinion represents unanimous, collective agreement.
Are large objects attracted to that sucking void in your skull?
"Let me help: Adam is ridiculing you."
Oh, he realizes it. He appears to think that if he just cherry-picks sections of what I actually write and ignores the rest, then he isn't guilty of the righteous slander I name to him.
The fact is, my interaction for the most part here *is* ridiculing Mark, and he's too damned stupid to realize that the only things I almost ever address him on are those that deal with his running away.
He's stupid enough to ask the gay marriage question of me directly because he assumes I take issue with what he's saying, not with his actions.
It's not me, Unix.
Because you have no integrity. That's why it's not you. You can't stand for anything, you have proven you can't be honest.
You're right, it's not you - because you've utterly trashed your reputation. You have nothing to lose. You have nothing to pit against any of us here.
You want to play, but you've got no skin to put into the game.
It's you and everyone else here who stands for individual rights and liberty.
You've never understood the concepts before, you've proven you're not in any way an authority, much less an impartial judge.
You set the rules and judge, not me.
Again proving your inadequate bona fides, you complain repeatedly of "different rules", but you cannot demonstrate where anyone is given different conditions than yourself.
So you don't know the rules. Nor do you honor any part of normal discussion. You repeat refuted and disputed points without hesitation, you demand to win the debate for your tone, and then you throw uninformed and slanderous insults in the next post.
I've answered plenty of questions.
Hah. Mark, people can scroll up and see that you're lying.
How many in this thread?
(Do you need me to count for you? I know that 22 is more than 15.)
How many have you answered and how many were you asked?
Time for you to nut up and tell me if that only applies to certain people.
Is that like "have the sack"? You know, when you made that claim, and then ran away at top speed? And you never had the "sack" to admit your error?
Verbatim?
"DJ, do you think homosexuals have the right to be married? It's a simple question."
Marraige is a contract between the parties involved, and who the parties are is up to the parties. The gubmint ought to have no say in the matter.
What did you expect, sack boy?
May as well pile on.......
"How do you defeat an ideology?" Well, if you had been reading Mark, you'd see that was already answered. You reduce their life expectancy. Considerably. If the frequency of this occuring reaches out and touches enough of the "believers" of that ideology, they will either see the futility of it and quit or become extinct altogether. Either outcome is acceptable.
It isn't rocket science. Primitive? Yes. And it's how the world has worked since the beginning.
Eagle 1
I see "life" has come up for poor Ralph again.
Mark: notice that you're the one going over the top with the macho references?
"man the fuck up"
"got the sack"
"nut up"
Are three of your latest. But they're always in threads where you are quite clearly trying to avoid actually stepping up and proving your argument.
Who's the one advocating "different rules?"
In the meantime, you could avoid the embarrassing spectacle of having your hypocritical words served back to you on a platter, if you'd stop being quite so stupid and insulting and stop with the ultimatums or trying to 'dare" us or "prove our manhood".
Besides, isn't that the last refuge of the bully once he's been proven an idiot? Is that really what you're trying to convey here?
"man the fuck up"
"got the sack"
"nut up"
U-J, this may be an example of what he's calling "short man syndrome".
DJ, glad to hear it. I agree.
"If the frequency of this occuring reaches out and touches enough of the "believers" of that ideology, they will either see the futility of it and quit or become extinct altogether."
So, you think that killing the believers of this ideology will cause them to see the futility and give up? Where is your evidence for this?
Unix, it's a simple question. Both Adam and DJ have answered it. All I have seen so far is this from you...
"You know, I don't totally agree with Ed, but he's at least capable of putting together a coherent argument."
First of all, where does that put you on the issue? And second, huh? According to you and many others here individual liberty, freedom, and personal rights without government interference are your bedrock principles. Those who choose to squash that, as Ed is doing in his argument, are failing to live up to this principle and are flawed in any argument they make:
"Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours."
No truer words have been spoken.
Those who choose to squash that, as Ed is doing in his argument, are failing to live up to this principle and are flawed in any argument they make:
Can you define "begging the question" yet?
Or find the flaw in that statement of yours that negates the argument you make?
It's a simple question.
Most of the questions you run away from are simple ones.
And you owe me many many many of those - many of which contradict your supposed principles. When you're asked to clarify what you mean, or which one you're using, you just.. run away.
Before you presume that I'm being a hypocrite, you should tend to your backlog.
First of all, where does that put you on the issue?
It's been well explained. Surely, someone as good at "asking yourself the questions to find out what people think" should have no trouble with it. But first you'll have to find out what "begging the question" is, and stop doing that.
And second, huh?
Perhaps until you can understand Ed's argument you should refrain from lecturing others.
But I don't think you've got the balls. I know you don't have the brains.
Me: "Marraige is a contract between the parties involved, and who the parties are is up to the parties. The gubmint ought to have no say in the matter."
sack boy: "DJ, glad to hear it. I agree."
Me: "What did you expect, sack boy?"
sack boy: " "
That's right, sack boy, you ignored the question.
And yet, you claimed only a bit earlier:
"I've answered plenty of questions."
In the past two plus years, you have avoided more questions than you have answered, and by about two orders of magnitude. Indeed, your behavior in this regard is so predictable that it is standardized. In this case, we see, yet again, your Standard Response #1, the "I can't hear you" response. You behave as if a request to respond or to answer a question was not made, or that you never read it. This seems to be your favorite.
Is there any depth of hypocrisy to which you will not descend? Have you no shame at all?
I sold my sense of shame on ebay.
It got a lot of attention at first because it was heavy duty, but in the end I had to sell it cheap because it was warped.
Well it's worked pretty well historically Marky. Maybe you should read a little more instead of wallowing in your preconceived naive worldview. The example I gave above fits perfectly. As does the Moro rebellion in the Phillipines c. 1900 which has the added feature of a level of Islamic fanatacism which makes the current bunch look like pikers. It also worked pretty well against the National Socialists and the Imperial Japanese militarists although they had a state-run industrial infrastructure which was vulnerable to demolition. Fanatical ideologies all which only gave up by killing enough of them to convince the rest that resistance was futile.
As I said before, complete extinction of the individuals who subscribe to that ideology works too. If that's what it takes, so be it.
If in fact you're a teacher you have no excuse for this level of ignorance.
Eagle 1
Eagle, you're point makes no sense. In fact, you contradict yourself by stating that the Nazis and Imperial Japan were easier to bring down because they had states. Al Qaeda has no state. It's an ideology that feeds on American aggression. Who exactly do you want us to "make extinct?" We've killed thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan. Have they given up yet?
Sounds to me like you need a read (or re-read) of the Guns of August as well as a brush up on von Clausiwtz which, thankfully, is required reading for our military's education. As he would say, if you win the war and lose the politics then you have lost the war--a lesson that we are trying to avoid now in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Eagle, you're point makes no sense.
Granted, this is nitpicky.
But I think you mean "your". When you're busy trying to be superior, it helps to get the little details right.
But your particular idiom is to get every detail wrong, and then condemn those who disagree, but without correcting any errors.
It's an ideology that feeds on American aggression.
No, it's an ideology that feeds on the American existence.
And guess what one of their proofs of our hedonism and evil?
The tolerance of homosexuality.
So, in the thread when you've been trying to trick those who are noticeably more thoughtful than yourself into what you think is a logical trap, begging the question on natural rights, you then forget that to bring up Al Queda?
I'd love to make fun of you for it, but I can't exceed the hilarity of your own beclowning.
I didn't say that Germany and Japan were easier to bring down, merely that they had targets which because of their physical presence were targetable and supported their aggression. UJ has it exactly right, that our existance feeds their ideology not any agression on our part. Our support of Israel is an excuse. As was our presence in Saudi Arabia. Would you stop fighting a mortal threat because you're tired? No, we're still fighting them because we havn't killed enough of them yet to get the point across and they haven't stopped laughing at the naivite of the current occupant of the White House. Why do you think attacks have stepped up in Iraq and Afstan? They sense that they can cause us to withdraw and quit because of the dithering of the President and his lack of the will to win. Do you really think they stop because we want to talk to them? Do you really think that they can be negotiated with? It's the entire Western way of life they oppose including our resistance to their efforts to have us convert to their religion.
The the politics von Clauswitz speaks of losing can equally be applied to folks like you who seem to be afraid of the use of force anywhere for any reason. Your logic follows the road to serfdom or in the case of the Islamists, Dhimmitude if not the sword outright. As I mentioned in my first post above, if YOU want to travel that path, be my guest but don't look behind you for there won't be many of us willing to bare our throats to the wolves of this world.
"our existance feeds their ideology not any agression on our part."
That is true. But ask yourself this: why haven't Muslims in this country started blowing up shopping malls? Could it be because they have realized by living here for awhile that our existence is a superior one? (Note, UJ, that I am not harping on Eagle's grammatical errors but sticking to a debate on substance)
If you add in the aggression, it gives them more fuel for the fire. Now, I'm not saying we must remove force from the table but I am stating that is has to be used in an intelligent manner. And, at the end of the day, they fear our way of life more than our guns and bombs.
"They sense that they can cause us to withdraw and quit because of the dithering of the President and his lack of the will to win."
How do you know this? Do you spend time analyzing Defense Department data on Al Qaeda? This is completely wrong and based only on your ideological beliefs. Please take the time to understand that it is (and was) a combination of several factors that lead to outbreaks of violence in Iraq and AfPak. You are vastly over simplifying things.
"Do you really think that they can be negotiated with?"
Well, first of all....who's "they?" No, I don't think Al Qaeda can be negotiated with and that's why we run regular operations inside of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
That is true.
Then, Ralph, your previous posting is nullified by that statement.
How do you know this?
Because, Mark, it's true of human nature for thousands upon thousands of years.
No, I don't think Al Qaeda can be negotiated with and that's why we run regular operations
Shorter Mark:
I believes what I believes when I believes it and that believe is always the right believe, and if you disagree, you are a moron and evil.
You've contradicted yourself repeatedly in this thread, Mark. But that's par for you. Just as on your site, you're raving about corporate misdeeds... When they're doing what they've been mandated to - upon pain of force applied - by the government.
Completely missing that you've kicked yet another own goal, you double down and start naming other "corporate" misdeeds and what lobbyists are doing.. Completely missing The Point.
Well, you're doing that here, too.
You need to pick a thought, and stick with it. Defend it.
It'll build character.
I know they've stepped up attacks because of the pattern they set in Iraq prior to the surge there. The US Military confirmed this at the time or weren't you paying attention. They almost succeeded because mindless drones like you were going to throw in the towel. The more attacks there were, the more Iraqi civilians and coalition soldiers were killed, the more noise you made for us to stop the war and go home. No not the same guys specifically, but the same ideology, methods and motives. The issue is EXACTLY the same in Afstan......security of the locals. Without it and an intelligent counterinsurgency program we lose. Petreus and McChrystal see this. Fearless Leader sees it but is unwilling or unable to buck the fuckwits like you. Thereby dithering. Clear enough for you now?
As for the definition of "they"? Come on Marky......does it have to be "Al Qaeda" the brand name to be relevant? You can't seem to let go of the old whine that "We're creating more terrorists by being mean to them". Wringing your hands and rocking back and forth in a helpless ball won't solve the problem.
Most Muslims in this country are here for reasons other than jihad. That is why we haven't attacks her coupled with the fact that the last administration figured out a way to find and stop plots before they came to fruition. Most who come here DO figure out that our way of life is superior.
Speaking from experience reading and commenting here, I'm wasting my time laying out the facts for you because no matter the strength or quality of arguement you forge ahead blindly unwilling or unable to acknowledge you're wrong. Not once.
Eagle 1
"Petreus and McChrystal see this. Fearless Leader sees it but is unwilling or unable to buck the fuckwits like you. Thereby dithering. Clear enough for you now?"
No. Your assessment is largely inaccurate as to why the surge in Iraq worked. It wasn't the fact that we had extra men alone that did it. It was also paying off a bunch of people and what I call the Woodward strategy. Apparently they started using a new counter insurgency strategy that is still highly classified. To my knowledge, the only member of the media that knows the exact nature of this strategy is Bob Woodward who was given unprecedented access to NSC meetings. That's what did it. And I know this from a primary source although I don't know what the strategy was because I don't have national security clearance.
As for Patraeus...
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56689
The real key in Iraq was the surge of ideas, not just the surge of troops,” Petraeus said. “Yes, the 30,000 additional troops that ended up being deployed during the surge enabled us to … implement time-honored counterinsurgency concepts more effectively and more rapidly than we could have.”
Multinational forces began living in the communities. They began protecting the people and securing their neighborhoods. “You cannot commute to the fight,” Petraeus said, and the command built 77 stations for coalition forces in Baghdad alone.
As attention shifts to Afghanistan, Petraeus said, people must remember that Afghanistan is not Iraq.
“All counterinsurgencies are local,” he explained. “You have to recognize the need for a truly nuanced and granular appreciation for local circumstances.”
Americans going to the country must understand the local customs and culture and the local power structures. “We are trying to help Afghanistan re-establish traditional ruling structures: the traditional [religious leaders], the traditional tribal leaders, who in many areas have been pushed aside, or killed, or run off by the Taliban or the more extreme leaders,” he said.
So, you are incorrect in what you assume Patraeus thinks. I know you don't like President Obama but you are letting your feelings get in the way of sound decision making.
"That is why we haven't attacks her coupled with the fact that the last administration figured out a way to find and stop plots before they came to fruition."
That's true. And how did they do that? They did a fantastic job of disrupting attacks by completely fucking up hirabis financial networks. No chest thumping. No guns. No bombs. Intelligence. As Larry Wilkerson has said, "The military should be the LAST tool we use to stop terrorism." He's right and he is a 30 year veteran with 1100 hours of flight time in Vietnam.
As to your last paragraph, I'm curious if my information I have listed here will enable you to see all of the facts. You are certainly entitled to believe the myth that President Obama is "dithering" but it's not grounded in facts...only feelings.
That's cute. Mark is, again, ignoring all but one particular set of statements and only dealing with the ones he thinks he can actually address...
Adam:
That's what I call the Markadelphia strategy. It's a theory. Point Proven.
"How do you know this? Do you spend time analyzing Defense Department data on Al Qaeda? This is completely wrong and based only on your ideological beliefs."
You pathetic little dickwad, do you see the inherent hypocrisy in this? You challenge him on the very thing you do day after day after day. You describe him via an utterly perfect example of pure projection.
There is little about this strategy which is highly classified. It was published three or four years ago by DOD in a manual that was written or inspired largely by Petreus and those who report to him. He taught it at the Command School at Leavenworth so don't hide behind the statement that we couldn't know anything about it. Have you read it? I have and it's precisely what worked successfully at the tailend of our involvement in Vietnam. If you took the time to read you'll find that we had troops living in villages in Vietnam, giving financial and physical security to the locals who then began to take care of the local VC on their own with some assistance from us. But I wouldn't expect that you would think anything other than "Vietnam Was Bad" and nothing good came out of it. The fact is the template for the surge in Iraq came directly from those lessons which were subsequently put on the shelf after we left SE Asia.
I never said that only guns and bombs are what's neccessary to win this war. That's your projection working overtime again Marky. You're placing your Sainted Bobby Woodward on a pedestal. As if he authored the surge strategy. Do your homework Marky.
Who precisely broke up the Islamist financial networks? The Bush Administration whose cover was blown by your fellow travelers at the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Me blinded by ideology? Take a look in the mirror. Projection is thy name Marky. The last paragraph of my last comment still stands for all the world to see Marky, You've just proved my point for me.
Eagle 1
Back to my original point Marky. Which you have still failed to acknowledge as true with all your windy ill-informed nonsense about the surge and counterinsurgency. If you kill enough of the Salafists, they'll either give up or die. Their choice and no tears will be shed by me either way they choose. KSM and his four buddies deserve nothing more than a long drop from a short rope and to be fed to the hogs.
Eagle 1
"If you kill enough of the Salafists, they'll either give up or die."
I find this statement to be terribly naive. Hirabis have shown that they will not give up when confronted with violence. We may kill several thousand of them, weaken their financial networks, or break the will of many of them but they won't give up until their fundamental ideology is exposed as being highly flawed and psychotic. There are multiple ways to do this and none involve force.
We are engaged in ideological war. The weapons we use must ones that involve using our intellect which I happen to think is superior to their intellect. Well, at least half of our country has superior intellect to them anyway. Thankfully, that good half is working hard in our Defense Department at present.
I find this statement to be terribly naive.
ALANIS!!!!!
THIS! THIS! THIS!
IRONY!!!
(Also ironic, as he's arguing with a "Primary Source" as he defines it.)
Somebody get Alanis!
Well, at least half of our country has superior intellect to them anyway.
The "half" that thinks not meeting a government defined standard of compassion should be a criminal offense?
The "half" that openly plans to bankrupt the coal industry based on known to be suspect pseudo "science"?
The "half" that plans to "increase choice and lower cost" by flatly refusing to even consider tort reform or allowing insurance companies to compete with one another nationwide?
That "half with the superior intellect"?
Marky.....so then they'll die. You keep killing them until they're gone. THAT'S THE PART YOU CAN'T GET THROUGH YOUR FUCKING THICK SKULL. Maybe you need to read a first hand account about the Pacific in WW2 to see how one fights a truly fanatic and committed enemy. Yes it's an ideological war too. You and your buddy Dhimmicrats have consistantly forgotten or neglected part 1 of the two part strategy that includes both force and non-force. Without part 1 there IS no part 2.
The Salafists do some of our job for us when they butcher their own. See the "Awakening" movement in al-Anbar Province for details. It appears that the same type of movement may be afoot in Afstan.
It's entertaining to see that your reluctance to use force in most any situation because "it will make them mad" or "make more of 'em into terrorists" is pretty well destroyed by the recent events on the Maersk Alabama. Wringing their hands got another ship's Captain killed the same day.
Fearless Leader and the Majority leadership dithering and wringing their hands will get US killed.
Eagle 1
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>