WARNING, LINK CONTAINS BLURY PICTURES. I dont consider them graphic, but felt I should at least say something.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=452288&in_page_id=1811
She is a member of a small religion called Yezidi, which is apparently NOT Islam but adheres to many Islamic traditions and belief's. She was stoned to death for dating a Sunni boy. I'm not sure what discussion I wanted to spur with this, but man, that's screw up.
You can find the video if you want to, but I am trying not to watch it.
Yeah, that's screwed up for sure. Such a loving bunch over there.
K, I'm an idiot. Watched the video.
- While stoning her to death she tried to get up several times and is bludgeoned back to the ground.
- I saw at LEAST 5 people with cell phones out taking pictures and a couple with cameras.
- While stoning her to death, her skirt gets flipped up. 2 people take the time to put her skirt back down before continuing to murder her.
And here I though Kurdistan was the "civilized" part of the region. No wonder Turkey is violently secular.
"A large crowd watched as...(men in her family and hardline religious leaders) hurled stones at her for half an hour...".
That I wasn't there, and have no other information to go on, I can't judge the verdict or how it was arrived at: but the act itself - being swift and barbaric - is disturbing.
That for 30 minutes a crowd stood by and watched is disturbing.
That her own family and clergy carried out the verdict is disturbing.
A different type of civility.
We have appeals. A death row inmate might sooner die from old age. This is a huge financial burden and the subject of heated debate about how to "fix" the issue.
We have a special place for putting the condemend to death where pedestrians with cell phone cameras are not happening by.
And while our clergy my bore some people to death, it's only for an hour. Our Church and State seperation - should parsonages be taxed? -is...ah, I am getting carried away here.
This was a violation of honor in a different culture, with it's own sense of conduct, right? Well, if the Yezidi code is so strick that a "sleep over" carries a death sentence, then that's the rules: one should live by them or get the hell out.
I condemn the killing as brutal and unwarrented and feel for the boyfriend in hiding. I suppose I feel for the family too as it must be horrible to have to kill your own children because of traditions.
Then again, if the daughter was a "handfull" (which I suspect was the case) they must of had some idea.
How about you folks here that said, "tough beans" to the WM shoplifter that wound up dead.
jdb
quote:
How about you folks here that said, "tough beans" to the WM shoplifter that wound up dead.
That question doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response.
Then don't
How about you folks here that said, "tough beans" to the WM shoplifter that wound up dead.
Horrible analogy..
Bread - I am surprised.
"No tears shed here for the thief....."
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5816&SearchTerms=walmart,shoplifting
The sentence you highlighted reads as analogy but it's intent was a contrast.*
Some people here said, "So what?" he was a thief.
There some people say, "so what?" she was a whore.
Intersted in why one is disturbing and the other not.
jdb
*I can clean it later when I have a few more synaps firing.
Off topic removed
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
Bread - I am surprised.
"No tears shed here for the thief....."
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5816&SearchTerms=walmart,shoplifting
The sentence you highlighted reads as analogy but it's intent was a contrast.*
Some people here said, "So what?" he was a thief.
There some people say, "so what?" she was a whore.
Intersted in why one is disturbing and the other not.
jdb
*I can clean it later when I have a few more synaps firing.
Does it really need explaing......
deleted
We are winning this policing action by replacing the exile government from England back in power, replacing the dictator that had the power of life and death over the citizens.
They have a constitution and a system of justice we established for them. We have thousands of casuals enforcing the traditions in their culture we cannot understand.
Did Jesus not address this same situation almost two thousand years ago?
What if it was a American Soldier she stayed all night with?
Would you feel we had soiled hands?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
We are winning this policing action by replacing the exile government from England back in power, replacing the dictator that had the power of life and death over the citizens.
We haven't won a thing there. Quite honestly, I think we're there simply because the current "President" had his pride wounded in Afghanistan and so he apparently wants to save face. Only question is, how will we withdraw? Will we withdraw with some modicum of dignity, or will we withdraw with our collective tail between our legs?
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
We are winning this policing action by replacing the exile government from England back in power, replacing the dictator that had the power of life and death over the citizens.
We haven't won a thing there. Quite honestly, I think we're there simply because the current "President" had his pride wounded in Afghanistan and so he apparently wants to save face. Only question is, how will we withdraw? Will we withdraw with some modicum of dignity, or will we withdraw with our collective tail between our legs?
I really fail to see how he had his pride wounded in Afghanistan. The Taliban was dismembered in short order and terrorist training camps were taken out.
Whoops, we didn't get OBL. No one can even say for certain if he is still alive or not. Whether you find one man in a vast wasteland of desert and mountains isn't the sole determining factor of success or failure. Hunting terrorists is like hunting prairie dogs.
quote:
jdb said
How about you folks here that said, "tough beans" to the WM shoplifter that wound up dead.
I say apples and oranges:
1) The shoplifter got in his bind because he decided to take something that was not his. That is an example of greed.
The girl got in trouble because she wished to marry a boy that was of a different religion. That is an example of love.
2) The forces set out to subdue the shoplifter and hold him until police arrived. The intent was not to kill him. The death was not foreseeable and incidental to the purpose.
The crowd set out to throw rocks at the girl until she was killed. The intent was to kill her. The death was a calculated action designed to end her life in the most painful and publicly humiliating way possible.
3) He was a grown man.
She was a 17 year old girl.
4) The act against the shoplifter was committed by a pair of individuals.
Hundred participated in and recorded the stoning of the girl.
SO... Greed v. Love. Accidental Killing v. Public Execution. Grown Man v. Young Girl. Individual Act v. Public Participation.
I would have to say those are the basic differences. If you cannot draw any significant distinctions between the two, you have some serious issues.
Shadows:
We are not putting England back in power. We turned the government over to an elected body.
I dont know what 'thousand of casuals' are.
Jesus did not address the situation. The Roman's were not seeking to quell violence in the province so they could pull their troops out. They intended to assimilate the entire region into their empire, tax them, and expand from their. There were also no attacks in which the Jews target Roman civilians at the market or schools. Additionally, the Roman's were religiously tolerant; the violence in Judea was not religous based but ethnic and territorial. So no, Jesus did not deal with this. You are again completely wrong.
I assume "stayed all night" is a euphemism for sex. If she stayed with an America soldier all night he should be court marshaled. They are not supposed to have sex with the locals and she is under age. Additionally, there is no indication "she stayed all night" with anyone. But to answer your question, no. I would not feel that we - as a nation - had 'soiled' hands because of it.
---
mr.jaynes:
George W. Bush is the President of the United States. There is no need to put president in quotations as it is a title and not a pseudonym.
"I would have to say those are the basic differences." -CF
Well obviously, and equally obvious is my inabiltiy to articulate what's been bugging me after reading the two esperate threads, almost back to back.
Both broke rules: both paid with their lives. Is it just the barbarism that affronts our cultural sense of "Just Desserts" for some people?
I conceed, jdb
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
Both broke rules: both paid with their lives. Is it just the barbarism that affronts our cultural sense of "Just Desserts" for some people?
It is. It's our sub-surface racism that allows one to be wrong, and the other right. It's the "barbarism" that makes it wrong even though she knew the consequences, on the other hand for the shoplifter, it's "come uppins" and right even though the outcome was far from predestined.
The only reason this thread was posted was to say "look at the barbarians". Barbaric being a relative term.
I can't believe that some people around here have to have the striking differences in the two fact patterns pointed out to them. Just goes to prove that common sense aint so common anymore.
And these people serve on our juries...god help us all.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
We are winning this policing action by replacing the exile government from England back in power, replacing the dictator that had the power of life and death over the citizens.
We haven't won a thing there. Quite honestly, I think we're there simply because the current "President" had his pride wounded in Afghanistan and so he apparently wants to save face. Only question is, how will we withdraw? Will we withdraw with some modicum of dignity, or will we withdraw with our collective tail between our legs?
I really fail to see how he had his pride wounded in Afghanistan. The Taliban was dismembered in short order and terrorist training camps were taken out.
Whoops, we didn't get OBL. No one can even say for certain if he is still alive or not. Whether you find one man in a vast wasteland of desert and mountains isn't the sole determining factor of success or failure. Hunting terrorists is like hunting prairie dogs.
And here we are, almost 6 years later, bogged down in the Middle East with no apparent end in sight.
"Just goes to prove..." - ip
Myopia, poor reading comp., or lame attempt to follow a poster around to get under his skin?
You decide.
jdb
quote:
And here we are, almost 6 years later, bogged down in the Middle East with no apparent end in sight.
I'm still trying to figure out how his pride was wounded in Afghanistan...
MichaelC:
So now I'm a racist because I see a difference between the unintentional death of a shoplifter and the intentional stoning to death of a teenage girl for loving the wrong person? Wow. That's a new stretch in logic.
I have NO IDEA what color the man was that died at Wal-Mart. I dont know what language he spoke, if he was an immigrant, nor his age but for the fact he was over majority. It might be in the article, I dont know. Because it doesnt matter. I dont know the race of the security guards that subdued him, nor their ethnic, religous, or linguistic backgrounds either. I was not aware that this was some kind of racially motivated event.
Likewise, I made no mention of the race of the girl nor her assailants. You can watch the video and see that they are all middle eastern (Kurdish presumably, but they could be Persian, Turkish or Arab - I'm too ignorant to really tell), but again, it has no bearing.
No one argues with the differences I posted, but you go on pretending like it is an analogous situation. If Matthew Shepard would have been stoned to death (dragged to death) by masses of people all participating and video recording the event - then there would be an analogy. Someone murdered by the mob for a personal choice that had no ill effects on other people (as opposed to someone accidentally killed while being subdued for their greed).
The purpose of posting this article was to simply bring it to light. I was under the impression that Kurdistan was a fairly 'normal' place, but it appears to be far from my definition of normal. To avoid your acusations of labeling other barbarians, perhaps I should stick my head in the sand and not pay attention to the goings on of the world (North Korea allows their people to starve, America holds captives without trials, the house of Saud has school girls beheaded for dress code violations - we better stop discussing these).
Honestly, if you cannot see the difference... just tell me. It would be a waste of time trying to discuss anything further with you. If you can see the difference and wish to point how why you think both are bad, let me know.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
MichaelC:
So now I'm a racist because I see a difference between the unintentional death of a shoplifter and the intentional stoning to death of a teenage girl for loving the wrong person?
No. Applying your knowledge of justice to some other country, then saying they're wrong for not believing as you do, maybe. Dragging up some article about something you don't like about another country or people, maybe.
And if you're one of those that applauded the death of the shoplifter, you certainly don't help your case.
Like I said, there's no reason for this thread other that to say "look at the barbarians." Is that racist? Maybe.
Then there is no reason to discuss Israel, Darfor, North Korean atrocities, or any other horrible event in the world. Clearly the only point is to call other people names.This is one of the rare instances in which I will flat out say my belief system is better than someone else's. I believe this is the first instance on this forum that I have ever made such a statement and is likely to be one of a handful of instances in which I can even foresee doing so.
Slowly beating a young girl to death in public because she loved the wrong person is beyond anything that I could ever begin to rationalize as an excusable activity. I sincerely hope you join me in this sentiment or your core values are very much at odds with my own.
I guess that make me racist against a belief - if you want to pretend a belief is a race.
My position on the shoplifting incident remains posted for all to see if you so desire. I did not feel the need to draw similarities and therefor do not know why I feel the need to continue reconciling the two:
quote:
I too find it hard to drum up sympathy for a criminal that dies as a consequence of the act.
If it is found that the Wal-Mart security guards set out to kill the poor bastard, then I will have issue. But if in the struggle he had a heart attack, or fell and hit his head, or in some other way was injured unintentionally by security the hell with him. Security guards get shot and killed trying to stop shoplifters, they are entitled to protect themselves if someone puts up a struggle and Wal-Mart is entitled to protect its property from theft.
It hits on all the key points I outlined above.
1) I didnt know nor relate to his nor the guards race.
2) I have little sympathy assuming it was UNINTENTIONAL.
3) He was infringing on other people rights (theft)
if you would like to reopen this discussion, please do so on the aforementioned thread. If you would like to relate this to the current thread; please, as I suggested, comment on WHY you think they are similar and equally bad.
and finally - racism is prejudiced based on ones RACE. Not their beliefs nor actions. If I dislike a belief or an action it is inherently NOT racist for the dislike is not based on race. (and, to be technical, Barbarian is linguistic prejudice [though I understand the common nomenclature and feel the need to point out that I say this in jest]).
I am happy to discuss this with you, but you are stating conclusions with engaging the issues. It makes it hard to have a meaningful dialogs.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Then there is no reason to discuss Israel, Darfor, North Korean atrocities, or any other horrible event in the world. Clearly the only point is to call other people names.
So, now all of the sudden, those rednecks down in Houston that dragged that black man around by their pickup truck, says something clear about the US. The United States, full of people that nail gays to fences and bomb abortion clinics.
There is nothing broader here than to condemn Islam, Iraq, Kurds, or someone. That's it.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Then there is no reason to discuss Israel, Darfor, North Korean atrocities, or any other horrible event in the world. Clearly the only point is to call other people names.
So, now all of the sudden, those rednecks down in Houston that dragged that black man around by their pickup truck, says something clear about the US. The United States, full of people that nail gays to fences and bomb abortion clinics.
There is nothing broader here than to condemn Islam, Iraq, Kurds, or someone. That's it.
[Roll Eyes] Heaven forbid we ever condemn someone. [/Roll Eyes]
If the practice was common place and was condoned by the community as it was in this case, then yes, I would make the same statement about the USA, but that's not the case. Honor killings are part of the fabric of the culture in the ME and are considered justified.
The people who perpetrated this atrocity in Texas were osctricized and punished. The people who did this in Kurdistan not only weren't ostricized, but were encouraged by the community.
The shoplifter that died was a career criminal with a very un-healthy lifestyle that contributed to his death.....He alone was responsible for his actions and his own death.....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
The shoplifter that died was a career criminal with a very un-healthy lifestyle that contributed to his death.....He alone was responsible for his actions and his own death.....
As was, unfortunately, this woman. She knew the consequences, that makes her responsible.
There are plenty of events around the world, including our own country, that we have difficulty explaining. No need to focus in on this one. If this event is news to you, you've been living in a cave.
"I'm not sure what discussion I wanted to spur with this, but man, that's screw up (sic)." - CF
Because it struck a chord with you and possibly after some dicussion of the matter you'll figure out why?
"The purpose of posting this article was to simply bring it to light." - CF
Well, that's different, but why bother, if not to point out that "those people" (not us) "over there" (not here) are screwed up (barbaric?)?
FWIW, I am NOT trying to be an donkey (which does require effort) but rather, I'm curious what you've gotten out of this so far, if anything.
jdb
First of all, it was in Wyoming that Shepard was mirdered. That's about 1,200 miles from Houston.
Second, yes - it says something clear about the US and I'm *very* sure that people talked about it in other countries. It said that there is a portion of the US that is violently homophobic and murderous and by the convictions that follows it said that the rest of US society does not tolerate such BS.
The stoning says that portions of Kurdish society stone girls to death who love people of a different religion and mobs of people video record it and put it on YouTube. It is what it is. Those are the only conclusion you can draw from the events.
PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS
In your interesting view then, we are to ignore any negative world event? All negative world events are good for is to call other people names?
Ignoring world events doesnt make them not happen. Whether I pointed this out to you or not, those people still stoned the girl to death. My pointing it out doesnt make it any better or worse, its simply a fact. How many girls have to be stoned to death before I am allowed to discuss it as a negative event? 10? 100? Over a thousand before it matters?
I believe I have covered this very carefully. I have answered ALL your questions in detail. I have explained my position and reasonings very carefully and have received nothing but target comments in response. If, as you suggest, my intent was to condemn Kurdistan I would have said so - in case you have yet to notice, I am not a very tactful person. My intent was to point out an event that I found troubling and get a reaction to it.
Your reaction appears to be "so what?" Noted, thanks.
This just in,
"My intent was to point out an event that I found troubling and get a reaction to it." - CF
Well then,
Mission Accomplished!
Roger That.
jdb
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS
In your interesting view then, we are to ignore any negative world event? All negative world events are good for is to call other people names?
It's not news. It's not a world event. It's the way things are, and have been. You aren't going to tell me that this act surprised you, are you?
You can look anywhere in the Middle East and find legal systems in various forms of evolution on this exact issue. But each of them at one time were here, or worse. It takes time, a long long time, longer than it took for us to outlaw that witch trial crap. Nothing you can do about it. It's not state-sponsored, it's overlooked or unprosecutable for various reasons in these countries. If you steal something in Saudi Arabia and get your hands cut off by some tribal guy, you can't really complain too much that it wouldn't happen in America.
I'm afraid it did surprise me Michael. Perhaps I am naive, but I did not know such things were part of Kurdish culture. I had a much more Westernize view of them I suppose.
I have not heard of such a stoning outside such acts in the good book. I guess I should have assumed such things still occurred, but have never seen a report on such activity before. Perhaps I'm just not paying attention.
Just because you say it happens frequently, and even if it does, does not make it less of an event. Just because something horrible happens often doesnt make it less horrible.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I'm afraid it did surprise me Michael. Perhaps I am naive, but I did not know such things were part of Kurdish culture. I had a much more Westernize view of them I suppose.
I have not heard of such a stoning outside such acts in the good book. I guess I should have assumed such things still occurred, but have never seen a report on such activity before. Perhaps I'm just not paying attention.
Just because you say it happens frequently, and even if it does, does not make it less of an event. Just because something horrible happens often doesnt make it less horrible.
It's been going on for hundreds, if not thousands of years and is considered just punishment. Only difference is now it can be posted to Youtube and other video hosts for the rest of us to see it first-hand...and to be outraged or shocked.
You think that's bad, check the rap on Sudan. It's not just the gov't and Darfur, crazy crap like this happens all the time in the tribes.
We have the death penalty for murderers. Sudan's gov't has the death penalty for lots of crimes. Including adultery, which yes, can be carried out by stoning.
To clarify:
I have several friends that have been in that region in recent years. They reported to me that it was fairly "normal." People going to and from work, school open, etc. I guess I had a misguided impression in my mind since their report was relative. My cousin went North after being stationed in Baghdad and another friend from Fallujah.
Perhaps I just liked to think such things no longer happen or maybe it is the visual aspect of it. Knowing it happened to someone and knowing it happened to a cute girl in a red dress are two different things I guess. Or maybe Im just dense. Either way...
I think all of us are vaguely aware of the barbarism which is rampant in other parts of the world. We just choose to block it out or assume since we don't see it, it doesn't happen anymore or never did, or it was just biblical anecdotes.
I didn't bother to follow your link or search out any video on it. I could pretty well picture it in my mind w/o having to see it for myself.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
We are winning this policing action by replacing the exile government from England back in power, replacing the dictator that had the power of life and death over the citizens.
They have a constitution and a system of justice we established for them. We have thousands of casuals enforcing the traditions in their culture we cannot understand.
Did Jesus not address this same situation almost two thousand years ago?
What if it was a American Soldier she stayed all night with?
Would you feel we had soiled hands?
By the time we pull out of there, I mean it, they'd better be politically freer than the United States is (or sometimes claims to be, depending on who the Attorney general is at the time).
CF Quoted:
We are not putting England back in power. We turned the government over to an elected body.
I dont know what 'thousand of casuals' are. [I got it the same place you found "dont" and "religous"]
Jesus did not address the situation. The Roman's were not seeking to quell violence in the province so they could pull their troops out. They intended to assimilate the entire region into their empire, tax them, and expand from their. There were also no attacks in which the Jews target Roman civilians at the market or schools. Additionally, the Roman's were religiously tolerant; the violence in Judea was not religous based but ethnic and territorial. So no, Jesus did not deal with this. You are again completely wrong.
I assume "stayed all night" is a euphemism for sex. If she stayed with an America soldier all night he should be court marshaled. They are not supposed to have sex with the locals and she is under age. Additionally, there is no indication "she stayed all night" with anyone. But to answer your question, no. I would not feel that we - as a nation - had 'soiled' hands because of it.
---------------------------------------------------
I do not understand what events you are reading in the chronicles where the information you are posting is found.
At the end of WW1 the British occupied most of Mesopotamia and was given mandate over the area in 1920. The British renamed the area as Iraq and recognized it as kingdom in 1922. In 1932 it obtained full independence.
Britain again occupied Iraq in WW11. In July 1958 another military junta brought to power Kassin who was overthrown 1963. Arif assumed the presidency. He was ousted 1968 by a junta by al-Bakr of the Ba'ath party. Hussein took over the presidency and imposed authoritarian in order to quell the political instability.
The British has had control over Iraq since 1920 to where the British furnished leaders in Iraq were exiled in Britain which over time the British, as they are in need of the oil of the ME, they today have a deep interest in the governing of Iraq. We are dead set on reinstalling the British picked ruling class.
So have some one read to you the chronicles of events before you cry I am wrong..
----------------------------------------
I believe Jesus, when confronted with the Adulteress to be stoned in the Israel history, even knowing Israel by the Roman Law could not condemn to death without Roman Authority, told the Jews that had the stones in hand "that he without sin cast the first stone. "
------------------------------------------
I believe that you are unaware of the events in the today world, on the decaying of the moral society, assuming the articles of war has presence over the hundred of thousands of years of nature laws of replenishing the species.
-------------------------------------------
We have over 28 thousand casualties as of today's reporting with 3.3 thousand dead.
Are you able to count on your fingers and toes in the thousands?
-------------------------------------------
Pull up the story by Jones on the opinion page of TW Sunday April 29, and have someone read the article "Pentagon was wrong to fabricate stories about Lynch, Tillman"
----------------------------------------------
I am sorry for the ending of life of such a youth by a tradition that seems to be older than history. We are entered into this war where pride will not allow us withdraw nor will it allow us to interfere with their moral standards even with some 150,000 troops and the latest of armament. In the passing parade of conquerors before us, who were defeated because their supply lines became to long, they like us have changed the face of the earth only temporary .
Shadows:
1) You are wrong. You stated in your original post that we were putting the "exile government from England back in power." That is simply not true. No matter how you chose to chronicle the history of Iraq, we are not putting England back in power.
Nor are we instating a dictatorship like the British. Nor are we dictating who gets elected. We did mandate a democratic elected form of government, so we are guilty of that.
and you are the first person I have heard defend Saddam's mass executions as an action to "quell the political instability." In that case, isnt every coup, rebellion, or dictatorship just doing the same thing? Poll Pot wasn't executing entire villages of dissidents, he was just quelling political instability. Nice.
2) "Dont" is a very common typing shortcut. Add to that my right pinky has been broken so many times it cannot reach the ' key without locking in place (damn you wide receiver position!)... so I dont use it while typing. "Religous: typo for religous. "Thousand of Casuals" could be a phrase with a meaning other than "thousands of casualties." They are significantly different and did not want to make assumptions.
3) I thought your Jesus comment was in regards to the preceding comment which address the Iraq war as a whole. Thus, I thought you were saying the Roman occupation of Judea was synonymous with the American occupation of Iraq. Pardon my misinterpretation, but in my defense it was a dramatic shift in conversation.
Yes, Jesus did cover public stoning over 2,000 years ago. I believe right after he said this a single stone lobbed over the heads of the crowd. Much to his amazement, Jesus turned around to give ye' ole' stink eye to the stone thrower; only to see the sinless virgin Mary searching for another missile.
Jokes aside, the bible makes it clear that Jesus was decidedly against public stoning. Unfortunately, the actors do not believe in, or at least do not follow the teachings of Jesus (at least not this one).
4) Yes, I can count on my fingers and toes by the thousands. Up to 10 thousand if each represents a single thousand integer. This answer was fairly obvious, so perhaps you were trying to ask something else?
5) Yes the government was wrong to fabricate stories of war "heroes." I did not, have not, and will not argue this point. If we are posting random points of agreement: it was wrong for John Wayne Gacy to molest and murder people.
6)
quote:
I believe that you are unaware of the events in the today world, on the decaying of the moral society, assuming the articles of war has presence over the hundred of thousands of years of nature laws of replenishing the species.
Ahh yes, moral society is just beginning to decay. Thank GOD people were so much more just in days of old. No one massacred entire villages, hunting down entire races of people, or worshiped different gods. Speaking of gods, thank goodness in the olden days no wars were fought over religion - in the good old days the troops were even more careful to not target holy places of other faiths and would certainly not purposefully target and destroy them, loot the valuables and enslave the priests while raping the female servants of their gods. Good thing that didnt happen in the days when people were more moral.
Thank GOD no one started major wars solely on the basis of religion. It would be kind of silly to invade territories and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the name of GOD as those people fought back in the name of GOD. And its a good thing the moral societies of yesterday didnt enslave masses of people and export them while using bible versus as an excuse. that would be crazy.
Or, now Im just making more stuff up here, if the church itself had millions of people executed for practicing Islam in Spain. Or burned women at the steak for being different. It would be awful if religous people mocked scientists and even arrested and executed them for arguing against what was known as clear biblical facts such as that the world was round, the sun goes around the earth, or that the earth is not in the center of the universe.
How about this craziness, wouldnt it be horrible if in the good ole' moral days people would go to new worlds and force entire nations of people to worship different gods or kill them while steeling their resources, raping their women, and enslaving their children? That would be nuts if the moral people of yesterday did stuff like that.
Its just too bad we aren't as moral as we used to be in the good old days.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
We are winning this policing action by replacing the exile government from England back in power, replacing the dictator that had the power of life and death over the citizens.
We haven't won a thing there. Quite honestly, I think we're there simply because the current "President" had his pride wounded in Afghanistan and so he apparently wants to save face. Only question is, how will we withdraw? Will we withdraw with some modicum of dignity, or will we withdraw with our collective tail between our legs?
I really fail to see how he had his pride wounded in Afghanistan. The Taliban was dismembered in short order and terrorist training camps were taken out.
Whoops, we didn't get OBL. No one can even say for certain if he is still alive or not. Whether you find one man in a vast wasteland of desert and mountains isn't the sole determining factor of success or failure. Hunting terrorists is like hunting prairie dogs.
The problem, like the Tribbles, is that the terrorists keep on replicating, keep on recruiting new members.
quote:
The problem, like the Tribbles, is that the terrorists keep on replicating, keep on recruiting new members.
Yes, we've heard it all before, "the cause of terrorism is our resistance to it." Why don't we just surrender now and get it over with? What policy of ours caused 9/11?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What policy of ours caused 9/11?
From the Declaration of Independence on, I believe. [;)]
Oh yeah, I forgot![B)]
I'd still love for someone to tell me what we did to piss off the muzzies during the Barbary Wars...
Those that think these loons are just going to go away are fooling themselves.
I caught a little of Michael Savage last night as I was driving home. He says Islam is not a religion but a political movement.
Interesting POV.
He noted that the strife in certain regions of the world is always a result of Muslims not being able to get along with their neighbors. i.e. they are almost always the instigator of trouble.
<Conan, or addled Michael Savage said:
He noted that the strife in certain regions of the world is always a result of Muslims not being able to get along with their neighbors. i.e. they are almost always the instigator of trouble.
<end clip>
Tell the Muslims in Serbia that.
(Although, to be fair, there was a lot of ugliness by a lot of people in that part of the world during the 1990s.)
A lot of ugliness? I've seen some smokin' hot eastern european girls in my day...[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
He noted that the strife in certain regions of the world is always a result of Muslims not being able to get along with their neighbors. i.e. they are almost always the instigator of trouble.
The ONLY conflicts in the world right now that I can attribute to Muslims are:
The Balkans
Somalia
Iraq
Kashmir
Chechnya
the Philippines
Israel
Armenia/Azerbaijan
Afghanistan
Algeria
Nigeria
Sudan
and random bombings in NYC, London, Madrid, Bali, throughout India, Moscow, etc. etc. etc.
The drug wars in South America, the Nepalese communists, and the Basque separatists are not directly associated with Islamic issues. Those conflicts are outside of problems Islam has with neighbors (and itself).
Wait, actually, if you look at a world map of the height of the Islamic Empire and draw a line around it... that's pretty much were all the conflicts in the world are today. How strange... Christians, secularists, pagans, Buddhists, and Hindu's must all be war like religion picking on the religion of peace.
You forgot Indonesia and East Timor.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
He noted that the strife in certain regions of the world is always a result of Muslims not being able to get along with their neighbors. i.e. they are almost always the instigator of trouble.
The ONLY conflicts in the world right now that I can attribute to Muslims are:
The Balkans
Somalia
Iraq
Kashmir
Chechnya
the Philippines
Israel
Armenia/Azerbaijan
Afghanistan
Algeria
Nigeria
Sudan
and random bombings in NYC, London, Madrid, Bali, throughout India, Moscow, etc. etc. etc.
The drug wars in South America, the Nepalese communists, and the Basque separatists are not directly associated with Islamic issues. Those conflicts are outside of problems Islam has with neighbors (and itself).
Wait, actually, if you look at a world map of the height of the Islamic Empire and draw a line around it... that's pretty much were all the conflicts in the world are today. How strange... Christians, secularists, pagans, Buddhists, and Hindu's must all be war like religion picking on the religion of peace.
Pretty good stats, huh? Savage makes some excellent points for a crazy guy.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
The problem, like the Tribbles, is that the terrorists keep on replicating, keep on recruiting new members.
Yes, we've heard it all before, "the cause of terrorism is our resistance to it." Why don't we just surrender now and get it over with? What policy of ours caused 9/11?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the challenge is to try to cutrtail their influence, cut off their resources, and discredit their rhetoric. Because that's the things that gives them their power. And I think that the present administration is unable to do that.
quote:
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the challenge is to try to cutrtail their influence, cut off their resources, and discredit their rhetoric. Because that's the things that gives them their power. And I think that the present administration is unable to do that.
We are cutting off their resources as we speak, but when the Feds attempt to do so by tracing funding and monitoring financial transactions people scream that civil liberties are being violated. You can't have it both ways.
As far as rhetoric, that only works on a limited capacity. Those who believe these particular radical ideologies are not going to be persuaded into changing their minds. This is a matter of eternal joy/punishment for these loons, and you're not going to convince them otherwise. The only educational inroads we can make are attempts to teach the children before they become indoctrinated, but according to several on the board here our rebuilding of schools in Afghanistan and Iraq is nothing to be impressed or concerned with. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the challenge is to try to cutrtail their influence, cut off their resources, and discredit their rhetoric. Because that's the things that gives them their power. And I think that the present administration is unable to do that.
We are cutting off their resources as we speak, but when the Feds attempt to do so by tracing funding and monitoring financial transactions people scream that civil liberties are being violated. You can't have it both ways.
As far as rhetoric, that only works on a limited capacity. Those who believe these particular radical ideologies are not going to be persuaded into changing their minds. This is a matter of eternal joy/punishment for these loons, and you're not going to convince them otherwise. The only educational inroads we can make are attempts to teach the children before they become indoctrinated, but according to several on the board here our rebuilding of schools in Afghanistan and Iraq is nothing to be impressed or concerned with. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
You want to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll have to adjust the approach, otherwise, it'll be a lost cause, kinda like another contemptible war the US got bogged down in and ultimately lost in Southeast Asia.
Take Afghanistan. My sense is, like the Soviets, we may never totally win in there unless we change the approach-not that our methods in any way mirror the Soviets' track record in that country.
The Soviets lost in Afghanistan for the same reason they ultimately lost their control in Eastern Europe (only on a more slower scale): because rather than try to win the people over on a grass-roots level, they used brute force and repressions and human rights violations almost as a matter of policy. I may suggest you research the Red Army's behavior on the way to Berlin in the 1940's, and the role of the Red Army and the Soviet political apparatus after 1945 in the governing of the conquered nations of Europe. I do beleieve you'll get an idea why they were not too popular.
And all of the various brutalities and atrocities didn't totally and ultimately win over the people, it instead caused more resentment and animosity than anything else. Oh, sure, the Soviets were the master of Eastern Europe, and the people probably knew that fighting the soviet military machine was a fool's errand. But the Soviets still never fully won over the people, because while they may have gotten their obedience, they never got their hearts, souls and minds; can't totally win those things when you march in as a conqueror rather than a liberator. And once the Soviets pulled out of Eastern Europe, not too many were sad to see them go.
And so the Soviets repeated this process in Afghanistan. Now, as anti-Soviet and as anti-communistic as I am, I suppose I'd much rather live under Lenin than live under Islamic rule any day. But rather than changing their tactics in some manner, winning over the people on a grass-roots level, giving them something to say yes to, the Soviets once again pulled essentially the same things that made them unpopular in Eastern Europe, rather than winning over the populace, they essentially came in again as conquerors. And there's a reason they lost Afghaninstan.
So what we have is a chance not to totally lose Aghanistan, and now Iraq. We must do more than occupy these countries. We must meet with the people one village at a time, win them over, bring them progress, give them something better than what they have. If we don't, we will have failed.
And that in no way is an endorsement of our involvement there....
quote:
You want to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll have to adjust the approach, otherwise, it'll be a lost cause, kinda like another contemptible war the US got bogged down in and ultimately lost in Southeast Asia.
Any comparisons to Vietnam don't hold water, but I'll agree with you that we should have been/should be far more aggressive, but wouldn't that just create more blowback?
quote:
Take Afghanistan. My sense is, like the Soviets, we may never totally win in there unless we change the approach-not that our methods in any way mirror the Soviets' track record in that country.
We did win there. We deposed the Taliban, which was our main goal. Afghanistan is a NATO responsibility now as we have turned over responsibility to the international community.
quote:
The Soviets lost in Afghanistan for the same reason they ultimately lost their control in Eastern Europe (only on a more slower scale): because rather than try to win the people over on a grass-roots level, they used brute force and repressions and human rights violations almost as a matter of policy. I may suggest you research the Red Army's behavior on the way to Berlin in the 1940's, and the role of the Red Army and the Soviet political apparatus after 1945 in the governing of the conquered nations of Europe. I do beleieve you'll get an idea why they were not too popular.
Thanks, but I'm already familiar with the pertinant history on the subject. Are you suggesting that the US Army is behaving in a similar fashion? If so, what's your proof?
quote:
So what we have is a chance not to totally lose Aghanistan, and now Iraq. We must do more than occupy these countries. We must meet with the people one village at a time, win them over, bring them progress, give them something better than what they have. If we don't, we will have failed.
That's exactly what we're doing. Are you completely unfamiliar with the thousands of humanitarian projects our armed services have conducted over the last 4 years? It appears to me that you need to do a bit of research yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
You want to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll have to adjust the approach, otherwise, it'll be a lost cause, kinda like another contemptible war the US got bogged down in and ultimately lost in Southeast Asia.
Any comparisons to Vietnam don't hold water, but I'll agree with you that we should have been/should be far more aggressive, but wouldn't that just create more blowback?
quote:
Take Afghanistan. My sense is, like the Soviets, we may never totally win in there unless we change the approach-not that our methods in any way mirror the Soviets' track record in that country.
We did win there. We deposed the Taliban, which was our main goal. Afghanistan is a NATO responsibility now as we have turned over responsibility to the international community.
quote:
The Soviets lost in Afghanistan for the same reason they ultimately lost their control in Eastern Europe (only on a more slower scale): because rather than try to win the people over on a grass-roots level, they used brute force and repressions and human rights violations almost as a matter of policy. I may suggest you research the Red Army's behavior on the way to Berlin in the 1940's, and the role of the Red Army and the Soviet political apparatus after 1945 in the governing of the conquered nations of Europe. I do beleieve you'll get an idea why they were not too popular.
Thanks, but I'm already familiar with the pertinant history on the subject. Are you suggesting that the US Army is behaving in a similar fashion? If so, what's your proof?
quote:
So what we have is a chance not to totally lose Aghanistan, and now Iraq. We must do more than occupy these countries. We must meet with the people one village at a time, win them over, bring them progress, give them something better than what they have. If we don't, we will have failed.
That's exactly what we're doing. Are you completely unfamiliar with the thousands of humanitarian projects our armed services have conducted over the last 4 years? It appears to me that you need to do a bit of research yourself.
I'm not suggesting, implying or even stating that our behavior in the Middle East closely resembles that of the Soviets. But like the Soviets, we are merely an occupying force, vaguely resembling liberators, but priomarily an occupying army. We have not totally won over the people, reconstruction projects and all. Gotta educate them, reindoctrinate them.
As for Afghanistan, we may had deposed the Taliban, but somebody's still shooting at us over there.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
As for Afghanistan, we may had deposed the Taliban, but somebody's still shooting at us over there.
Six guys were going to go in and shoot up Fort Dix, does that mean we've lost here in the states as well?
Radical Islam is far different enemy than communism or fighting a different political ideology.
People will eventually give up when they realize that a political ideology is killing it's people.
However, Islam has the unique appeal of being a religious ideology which also rules governments. No one cares if they get killed because they have a bunch of Imams promising virgins and all you can eat buffets- or whatever in their final paradise for participating in Jihad. Gotta be better than huddling in mud huts in a desert or shivering with the yaks in the mountains.
Should we just tuck our tails, say radical Islam has whipped us and await an inevitable day of reckoning back here in the states?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
As for Afghanistan, we may had deposed the Taliban, but somebody's still shooting at us over there.
Six guys were going to go in and shoot up Fort Dix, does that mean we've lost here in the states as well?
Radical Islam is far different enemy than communism or fighting a different political ideology.
People will eventually give up when they realize that a political ideology is killing it's people.
However, Islam has the unique appeal of being a religious ideology which also rules governments. No one cares if they get killed because they have a bunch of Imams promising virgins and all you can eat buffets- or whatever in their final paradise for participating in Jihad. Gotta be better than huddling in mud huts in a desert or shivering with the yaks in the mountains.
Should we just tuck our tails, say radical Islam has whipped us and await an inevitable day of reckoning back here in the states?
We are fighting an idea and its adherents. Reeducation is needed. I think something along the lines of the films that the people of Berlin
were required to watch after the fall of Nazi Germany, exposing the atrocities of its former leadership.
Win their hearts and minds and the rest will follow.
CF being answered;
-----------------------------------------------
d
I appreciate that you are attempting to discuss this with me. Pardon me if I have trouble following your train(s) of thought.
--
The economy in the US, let alone the world, is not receding. The world economy is growing as fast as it ever has. The US economy is growing at a reasonable pace following a period of rapid growth. So you are mistaken about the generally economic climate.
Likewise, new land is being created. River delta's are the most common form. But also in Dubai they are constructing new Islands. Dallas is turning some swamp/drainage land into usable real estate. And Kilauea has continuously spouted new land into the sea for over a decade. In another decade or two a new island will form in the Hawaiian chain. New Land!
But to address your point on the matter: land has not been the principle form of wealth since feudal time. International trade and then industrialization have made commodities and capital assets a much more important asset. A simple example: the land on which my house sits is worth no more than $35,000. However, with the construction of a dwelling the package is worth over $100K. Making the dwelling more valuable than the land. Clearly this elementary example unfolds many times over when you consider the capital assets of factories or skyscrapers.
Even these assets pale in comparison the trade they are able to accomplish. The value of a company is not the asset base on which it operates, but the discounted potential future profits it will generate. The assets are merely a tool to accomplish this goal. Before the trade and the industrial revolution land was the only asset on which additional resources could be made (cows being the classic: with interest (milk), capital gains (they grow and you slaughter them), and dividends (calves), the amount of each you could generate depending proportionally to your land ownership). However, land is no longer the exclusive nor even the primary method for generating wealth nor has it been in the history of the United States.
And to clarify your point, the money we are handing out in Iraq is not coming back to the US as foreign investment. It is being spent regionally on necessities. There is very likely some residual effects in world trade that impact the US, but not the direct investment you infer. Lets hope we stabilize the region so that they may realize their oil wealth and perhaps we can see some of that return as investment.
An economist, you are not.
d
CF answered;
-----------------------------------------------
My assumption is that all thing are relative. The establishing of this country was by a religion conquest for gold for the church of Spain. The archive record that Cortez said those he could not convert to religion he would slay. Those who came to the north shores were refugees from the church of England and seekers of gold along the north coast. Also England establish prison camps for their convicts but later moved them to Australia
al-Bakr rousted the English Empire from Iraq They took with them their established government of Iraq to England. Saddam [second in command] did quell the political instability left behind. He killed many civilians in doing so, like we are doing.
We are in Iraq today with upward to 160,000 ground troops, cluster bombing civilian homes from above 50,000' feet after we made him destroy all missiles that would reach that height. Our purpose is to quell the political instability in Iraq regardless of how many residents we blow up and how many women and children we kill merely because we think there is some bad guy living in the house.
We need to reconsider the old bushy head German's theory on relativity. How many acts of violence you point out in your post that does not also apply to us ? Or is there a noble justification for all the acts of violence we have done or are doing? Does not retaliation beget retaliation which begets violence and violence promotes violence?
One could go on with pages of print asking our citizens to look on their doorstep as this and other scrimmages is bankrupting our country. That phony money we have been distributing over there is being used to buy our industries [through the stock market} and our lands. We call it foreign investments that are closing our industries. There is lots of paper but no more land is being created.
The stoning of the young girl, as I have pointed out, that was a practice of the Israelites thousands of years ago but I see no way we should support a supposed civilized group today that is allowing it.
It's past time to get the hell out of there and stabilize the political instability in our homelands before the tidal wave of a receding economy overwhelms us.
CF quoted.
However, land is no longer the exclusive nor even the primary method for generating wealth nor has it been in the history of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------
What started out as our conflict of interest in establishing a government in Iraq that allowed the age old practice of stoning to their death young girls, has turned into the discussion of the economist age old saying that all wealth comes from the earth. They sure have been misleading civilization [if I am permitted to use that word] over the centuries. .
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
A lot of ugliness? I've seen some smokin' hot eastern european girls in my day...[;)]
Don't need to tell me twice-went to college with one (she was from St. Petersburg, though at the time I knew her, it was still called Leningrad) and didn't know whether to marry her or pray to her.
The 17 year old being stoned to death just hit CNN. They're showing the film.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=Am4g48mhC_Trv.1U0RHACkms0NUE
The village that stoned the girl to death are not targets of al Qaida. Previous to the attack they were left alone, since they have seen 23 men executed off a bus, and ~200 killed yesterday in mass attacks.
Strange that the killing of a teenager for loving the wrong person is justification for the killing of 200 people (mostly not involved Im sure) for killing the wrong person. Welcome to the 12th century I suppose.
The village has a differing idea of Islam. They believe in a being who looks like an angel. The angel goes by a similar name as the devil for islam and christianity. This makes them devil worshippers.
It's use of an ancient form of Persian faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
The village has a differing idea of Islam. They believe in a being who looks like an angel. The angel goes by a similar name as the devil for islam and christianity. This makes them devil worshippers.
It's use of an ancient form of Persian faith.
Just think, these same cockroaches have political and economic clout. Scary.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
The village has a differing idea of Islam. They believe in a being who looks like an angel. The angel goes by a similar name as the devil for islam and christianity. This makes them devil worshippers.
It's use of an ancient form of Persian faith.
Just think, these same cockroaches have political and economic clout. Scary.
Maybe I should explain that the Islamists and Christians consider the town's folk devil worshipers.
They state they don't believe in the devil at all.
Yazidis basically believe that God (the God of Abraham in most adaptations) created the world and then handed its care to 7 Angel like beings. These 7 "angels" are worshiped as god-like beings.
The most important of the Angles is a bastardization of the Greek name for Zeus... which happens to be close to the Arabic word for Satan. This most important being is kind of like the Catholic Angel St. Michael.
So from my elementary knowledge of their religion, it is an ancient pagan religion worshiping a pantheon of lesser gods who serve one greater god under the guise of Islam (kinda like Voodoo is Christianity). They do not pay homage to evil spirits, rebellions against god, or anything else that would qualify as devil worship.
Then again, they do not believe exactly what the Sunni's believe, so the rest is just details and god wants them to be killed...
Nothing like a good old fashioned smiting