Obsession

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You first make your enemy a demon so you can rest easy morally when you kill him.

Psychotics need you to share their madness so they don't feel alone in their insanity.

We are all the same.

Maybe YOU are the same as the average Arab mob who aspires to be controlled by religious, insane, fascist dictators like in Iran. I beg to differ.

Only psychotics look at reality straight in the eyes and refuse to embrace it.

Really? Are you THAT different? Look at what you're doing here...instead of treating the average Muslim as an individual who may or may not be a coldblooded fanatic, you've decided that they are all guilty of the crime of being part of some sort of radical religious element of society that is comparable to the Nazis simply because of their religion. The unspoken part of "them" being at war with "us" is that we need to make war right back, on all of them. After all, what's the solution to a war being waged by "Islam" other than wiping out all the Muslims?

YOU sound more like a Nazi than they do. "Reality" is that there is a small but vocal and violent minority of Muslims who think extremism is the answer and our best chance of dealing with them is to get the the average, NON-extremist Muslims on our side. Your "reality" is a thinly veiled excuse to wage religious war against a religion you don't like. No offense, but we already have Osama and friends doing that...we don't need fanatics like you on OUR side too.

Rainsford:
At first glance you sounded like a trip to Alice in wonderland where up is down....etc
but on further reflection perhaps you are tapped in so therefore:

would you please provide some proof that the radical portion is a minute percentage of muslums and also provide me with a percentage for those muslums who are sympathetic to the radicals and explain to me how they are any different?

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is no spoon.

How predictable: you are indeed full of hot air.

Time for you to go back to your introspection-chamber to recharge your batteries.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You took absolutely zero responsibility for your nation's wrongs.

Which nation?

Hamas and Hezbollah aren't completely evil - they exist in part in reaction to excessive wrongs done to populations by others, including us. You, if like others on the right, support tyranny by having no objection to our supplying vast military aid to one side in conflicts there, which is used for right or wrong that you don't watch too closely.

Excessive wrongs? Ha!

The biggest wrongs done to them was by their own "brothers": first were the Arab nations that began the cycle of wars in 1948, and then there was the benevolent PLO, bitchslapped out of Jordan into Lebanon.

People like to bash Israel, while ignoring the details of how we got the green line, and then the blue line. This, while their "brothers", who were the catalyst to their current hardship, didn't even bother giving the refugees citizenship (Jordan excepted, AFAIK).

Mark Steyn noted that the average age in Gaza is around 16.5 years -- a bunch of ignorant, hot-head teenagers, which are easily manipulated by those in power -- with the blessing of the Iranians.

Honestly, the only thing that can be done for those pepole now is to execute all their so-called leader, since they are not doing anything but taking care of their position, just like Arafat did when he fattened up his bank accounts with a the Eurodollars.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234

They're determined to kill us

Oh, really? What, exactly, in the last thousand years has suddenly changed that they want to kill us?

I say it's more likely that we're the ones who have decided we need to kill thm and so it's time to demonize them to justify it, the usual plan.

I know of nothing they can do to threaten us seriously. The radicals were becoming irrelevant until we proved their message right about our behavior.

...and they're all slowly obtaining nuclear technology. It's clear what the threat is. Our struggle is to not allow the Churchill?s of today to sign off millions of deaths tomorrow. We must not permit this threat to continue to grow, or the blood of the millions that they kill will be on our hands.

Unfortunately, I believe we already have the blood of our families on our hands. No one today is willing to do what is necessary and kill them before they kill us. We will learn our lesson harshly.

Countries have every reason to want a nuke for self-defense. Yes, that's enormously dangerous. Who can we blame for making that the case, giving them reason to fear that there is nothing to protect them if the most powerful nation wants to ignore the law and go after them? Oh, right.

The lesson we need to learn is not yours - yours is the lesson of Viet Nam, kill millions first and later say "oh, gee, they didn't have the agenda we thought they did." The lesson of Viet Nam is to pursue co-existence, to stop being the mass-murderer as in that nation with 2 million killed.

You meant Chamberlein's, not Churchill's - and even that lesson doesn't hold up. Not every foreign leader is Hitler. Churchill himself realized this when he tried hard to get the US to pursue peace with the USSR, and was very frustrated by the US blinders in the McCarthy era.

The people who are calling for killing millions are the menace. The post above wants to kill millions. He's the menace.

Nuclear prolifiration is important - and the US needs to lead on it, including giving up our own nukes and demanding the rest of the world do the same. Our current regime is doing the opposite, leaving anti-proliferation treaties (and exposing an anti-proliferation CIA asset), and pursuing new nukes and space-based weapons.

You?re right, I meant to say Chamberlain.

So, you?re arguing how it?s perfectly valid for them to arm themselves while under chants of ?Death to America?. Sure, but if it?s a fight to the death I want it done prior to them having nuclear material. The conflict suddenly turns from conventional to a nuclear war and you?re more than willing to let them obtain that position.

It?s their choice to disregard life and to come after us. It?s our choice on what to do before we?re dead and you make it perfectly clear that you think you?re above their bloodlust, untouchable by them, with no reason to stop them.

Talk is cheap, you?ll never stop them while their taught from birth that its god?s will to kill. There is no diplomatic solution beyond capitulating and surrendering our sovereignty. These aren?t people you?re going to appease.

From your tone however, we?re apparently the evil who needs to disarm, surrender, and pretend they?re merciful once victorious. This ideal ignores that our position of military strength is the only reason we?re still alive today, and if they had been in our position as you wish to allow them, we?d already be a wasteland and that is where we?re heading if we don?t prevent this war from going nuclear.

You?re not ready to recognize that there even is a threat, and that is exactly why we cannot prevent them from obtaining their goals. If we recognized what their going to do, we?d do what was necessary to stop it, but we won?t. ?Peace for our time? is an illusion that costs millions of innocent lives and that mistake is happening again today.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is no spoon.

How predictable: you are indeed full of hot air.

Time for you to go back to your introspection-chamber to recharge your batteries.

There is no fork either.

 

[Craig234]

Jaksalas, you're a guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail. The screws and knobs you smash with your hammer pay a price. You break things, and that makes you want to smash some more because they are broken.

I feel like I'm trying to teach a pig to sing (I'm not comparing you to a pig, I'm comparing the inability you have to hear what I'm saying) when I try to say something to you about the fact that not everything is Hitler and Churchill, as even Churchill recognized when he got frustrated with people like you in the 1950's in the US.

There are some people who simply always must be exposing some threat, telling everyone how the world is doomed if they aren't taken seriously, and this time they really mean it. There is a serious set of issues with terrorism and the middle east, and the solutions have little to do with your one note response, the hammer.

You are simply in the way to solving the problems and your views threaten the nation's ability to solve them. Logic wasn't going to get Hitler to have a good policy on the Jews, and it's not going to get you to have a good policy on the Muslims. (Hey, i get one gratuitous Hitler reference since you took one).

It's absurd when you say anything about their being determined to attack us when we're the ones who put them under a 25 year rule of a dictator and stole their democracy, and then encouraged Saddam to invade them resulting in a million casualty war with WMD used while we ignored it.

I don't have all the answers for, say, Iran. There are experts who are not part of a corrupt, misguided neocon movement who can come up with good options. One likely example is the writer Robert Fisk.

Would you be willing to accept a policy of non-proliferation where the US gives up all but five of its nuclear missiles, abandons the development of new nukes and militarization of space, and pledges not to invade Iran if Iran does not invade other nations (they and we both give aid), in exchange for Iran giving up any nukes?

No? You want a one-sided policy where we get all the advantages and they get none and are vulnerable to yet more of the same from the past, as we surround them in Iraq and Afghanistan (they don't exactly control Mexico and Canada).

Your way lies needless war. Your same arguments, grade-school in citing things like Chamberlein as the universal rule for foreign policy, can be applied to why we should have gone to war in Viet Nam - you have learned nothing useful from our history there.

I'm determined for the US to have security, so that our great values of democracy and freedom can be powerful in the world. Your policies will endanger the US.

 

[Eos]

Frankly, I'm concerned about the timing of the release of this film. It smacks of desperation. Or shilling for the Republicans. Or both...

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Would you be willing to accept a policy of non-proliferation where the US gives up all but five of its nuclear missiles, abandons the development of new nukes and militarization of space, and pledges not to invade Iran if Iran does not invade other nations (they and we both give aid), in exchange for Iran giving up any nukes?

No? You want a one-sided policy where we get all the advantages and they get none and are vulnerable to yet more of the same from the past, as we surround them in Iraq and Afghanistan (they don't exactly control Mexico and Canada).

Your way lies needless war. Your same arguments, grade-school in citing things like Chamberlein as the universal rule for foreign policy, can be applied to why we should have gone to war in Viet Nam - you have learned nothing useful from our history there.

I'm hopping into this argument a bit late, but I have to say that I disagree with the part of your post that I quoted above, and that for the most part I have agreed with Jaskalas. I have read every post in this thread and respect both of your opinions and how informed you are on the subject at hand.

That being said, I feel that it's in no way fair to compare Iran with a nuclear weapon to Germany (there's my Nazi reference). Sure Hitler was an insane dictator who was for the extermination of millions of people, but at the same time, he would have never told a soldiers to kill a group of soldiers to commit suicide by strapping a bomb to their chest and run into a crowd of civilians. To the west, those types of things don't even enter our train of thought. Even if such a deal was made to limit the U.S.'s nuclear power, do you honestly think the other half of the deal would hold up to its promise?

The problem is that everyone quoting "it's only 10% of the muslim population" is delusional. Where did that get that statistic? Think of the ramifications those who said they were pro-U.S. might suffer if they were cited as siding with this country. Look at Iran, he didn't force himself into power, maybe only 10% went out to vote and that's how he got into power?

The honest truth is they have no tolerance for others, and even if the statistics are true saying its only a small % (which they probably arent)... it is inevitable that there is another conflict. Most of them dont agree with the teachings of hatred? As soon as one fault was found what reason do you have for staying with the religion? 'Uhhh, I don't agree with killing people who dont convert but I'm going to keep following this religion."

Any other religion has a problem with something, their extremists write a book, goes on a radio talk show to promote it, and then gets bashed online. And then a muslim extremist suicide bombs and kills half a dozen people he doesn't know. When was the last time someone Hindu did that? Then hundreds of reports blame the president, who is an idiot for the record, but offer no other option besides leaving.

Lets leave Iraq. Then we can have the international community blame us for the thousands of deaths that come as a result of the civil war. I don't agree with what the president has done, my goal is always after what's best for humanity. The whole thing is broken, and neither side has shown me a convincing way to fix it.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is no fork either.

I see you're on a mission to list all the kitchen utensils.

Oh, well, whatever you think makes you look dignified while avoiding my question.

Carry on.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You always become what you fear.

What becomes of one whose only fear is God?

 

[AnitaPeterson]

FYI, the movie is also available on the major torrent sites...

 

[fskimospy]

In Iran, who is the president doesn't really matter. It is strictly a ceremonial position.

My biggest question is if people really think that killing more Muslims is somehow going to lower the threat that these terrorists pose to us? I have seen no evidence that it will. To me, it seems that law enforcement has been fantastically successful in preventing more terrorist attacks. I really don't think you can make a good argument that the war in Iraq has stopped even a single attack here from happening. I find this odd because Bush seems to never miss an opportunity to bash democrats for their lean towards law enforcement over military options, but Bush's own law enforcement agencies deserve a lot of credit for preventing more attacks.

It is also difficult to compare the tactics of muslim extremist groups to western ones. No matter how loathesome terrorism is, it is essentially a tool of the weak. When our extremist groups write a book or lobby a congressman, it is because if they can influence them they can affect real change. The groups in the middle east have no such hope through normal channels. So... they embrace something outside that. Does it make it okay? Of course not. It IS a rational response though, no matter how much we may wish it wasn't.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You always become what you fear.

What becomes of one whose only fear is God?

We become the god of fear, but he's usually called the Devil.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is no fork either.

I see you're on a mission to list all the kitchen utensils.

Oh, well, whatever you think makes you look dignified while avoiding my question.

Carry on.

Dignity? Surely you realize that because you MUST see me as a clown I have chosen that icon for you. Those of us capable of introspection of course know that as Projection. I am a clown to you because you are the actual clown. It is why you ask clown questions and why I tell you they are not real. Nothing at all can be understood without introspection. The job of every clown who argues is to confine the conversation, if he can, to the subject of red noses. You do that by mock challenge and phony threat. If I won't talk red noses it means I need can't or fear for my dignity. Hehe, the question has always been, when will you see that your fear of the other creates hate that you need to justify because your lack of introspection leaves you only one answer, to kill anything that you fear. What you fear is your childhood memories that are deeply repressed. What you fear is that you will die if ever you relive what is hidden there. I see you out of a place you can't look and you can't get your logic around. Far from being predictable as you fancy you can't even guess where I'm coming from.

 

[imported_dna]

Notice how much you wrote, yet you did not answer the question.

If you think the question is not valid, then explain why.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: dna
Notice how much you wrote, yet you did not answer the question.

If you think the question is not valid, then explain why.

Unless I misunderstood what was written, I believe moonbeam was saying that there is no point in answering your question since your delusional and skewed view on the situation makes it impossible for you to understand any possible truth behind the answer.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You first make your enemy a demon so you can rest easy morally when you kill him.

Psychotics need you to share their madness so they don't feel alone in their insanity.

We are all the same.

Maybe YOU are the same as the average Arab mob who aspires to be controlled by religious, insane, fascist dictators like in Iran. I beg to differ.

Only psychotics look at reality straight in the eyes and refuse to embrace it.

Hehe, right. You wouldn't be psychotic if you didn't think you knew what reality is. Your psychosis is your conviction. You always become what you fear.

Are you one of those "BELIEVE IN JESUS"-cardboard carrying weirdos who roam the streets? Really, I'm all for having a fresh point of view, but yours is just completely alien.

To the point, do you really believe all of mankind have a united goal and are just in disagreement about how to obtain it?

Sorry, I didn't see your question. No, I am not religious at all. I believe that humanity is asleep and that the zombies you see walking around can have any goal imaginable. But I also believe, or should I say know, that all awakened beings are the same, conscious in the now and filled with infinite love. In short, the meaning of life is not for one somnambulist group to kill another, but to awaken from the dream. My view may be alien, but it is real. The path of sleep is the wheel of Karma on which one can but spin and spin. We are all the same at the deepest level. God is the projection of man's potential.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: dna
Notice how much you wrote, yet you did not answer the question.

If you think the question is not valid, then explain why.

Unless I misunderstood what was written, I believe moonbeam was saying that there is no point in answering your question since your delusional and skewed view on the situation makes it impossible for you to understand any possible truth behind the answer.

As they say, the answer to a fool is silence, but experience has shown that in the long run any other answer will have the same effect. But it doesn't matter to me. If he is willing to consider the nature of his questions as well as what he asks, I will try to meet him more than half way. I see no purpose it telling somebody they are delusional and skewed if there wasn't some possibility of their seeing it too. He who has made a door and a lock has also made a key. I think my previous post also answers his question. To fight terror we must first awaken or at least start to consider how we operate asleep.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You always become what you fear.

What becomes of one whose only fear is God?

We become the god of fear, but he's usually called the Devil.

Not the answer I thought you'd give. Not at all.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: dna
Notice how much you wrote, yet you did not answer the question.

If you think the question is not valid, then explain why.

Unless I misunderstood what was written, I believe moonbeam was saying that there is no point in answering your question since your delusional and skewed view on the situation makes it impossible for you to understand any possible truth behind the answer.

As they say, the answer to a fool is silence, but experience has shown that in the long run any other answer will have the same effect. But it doesn't matter to me. If he is willing to consider the nature of his questions as well as what he asks, I will try to meet him more than half way. I see no purpose it telling somebody they are delusional and skewed if there wasn't some possibility of their seeing it too. He who has made a door and a lock has also made a key. I think my previous post also answers his question. To fight terror we must first awaken or at least start to consider how we operate asleep.

Heh, parrying my question with personal attacks.

ad hominem strikes again. Well done!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: dna
Notice how much you wrote, yet you did not answer the question.

If you think the question is not valid, then explain why.

Unless I misunderstood what was written, I believe moonbeam was saying that there is no point in answering your question since your delusional and skewed view on the situation makes it impossible for you to understand any possible truth behind the answer.

As they say, the answer to a fool is silence, but experience has shown that in the long run any other answer will have the same effect. But it doesn't matter to me. If he is willing to consider the nature of his questions as well as what he asks, I will try to meet him more than half way. I see no purpose it telling somebody they are delusional and skewed if there wasn't some possibility of their seeing it too. He who has made a door and a lock has also made a key. I think my previous post also answers his question. To fight terror we must first awaken or at least start to consider how we operate asleep.

Heh, parrying my question with personal attacks.

ad hominem strikes again. Well done!

Heh, perhaps I did not speak clearly enough. I said that the answer to a fool IS silence, but that I don't mind spending many many words, as you commented I did, because as long as there's even a small chance you can understand me I will gladly try. You may be a fool, but I will gladly make the effort to change that if I can because YOU ARE worth the effort, in my opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You always become what you fear.

What becomes of one whose only fear is God?

We become the god of fear, but he's usually called the Devil.

Not the answer I thought you'd give. Not at all.

Oh heck, I lost my post that fleshed out my answer, but would love to hear your answer instead.

Basically I said that I can't understand why anybody would fear God. I think it is fear that keeps us from knowing him. We would have to know that we are forgiven and can't forgive ourselves. We are way way way too worthless for that and would feel it.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Religious fanatics are going to be the end of mankind.

I would argue that man is going to be the end of mankind.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You first make your enemy a demon so you can rest easy morally when you kill him.

Psychotics need you to share their madness so they don't feel alone in their insanity.

We are all the same.

Maybe YOU are the same as the average Arab mob who aspires to be controlled by religious, insane, fascist dictators like in Iran. I beg to differ.

Only psychotics look at reality straight in the eyes and refuse to embrace it.

Really? Are you THAT different? Look at what you're doing here...instead of treating the average Muslim as an individual who may or may not be a coldblooded fanatic, you've decided that they are all guilty of the crime of being part of some sort of radical religious element of society that is comparable to the Nazis simply because of their religion. The unspoken part of "them" being at war with "us" is that we need to make war right back, on all of them. After all, what's the solution to a war being waged by "Islam" other than wiping out all the Muslims?

YOU sound more like a Nazi than they do. "Reality" is that there is a small but vocal and violent minority of Muslims who think extremism is the answer and our best chance of dealing with them is to get the the average, NON-extremist Muslims on our side. Your "reality" is a thinly veiled excuse to wage religious war against a religion you don't like. No offense, but we already have Osama and friends doing that...we don't need fanatics like you on OUR side too.

Rainsford:
At first glance you sounded like a trip to Alice in wonderland where up is down....etc
but on further reflection perhaps you are tapped in so therefore:

would you please provide some proof that the radical portion is a minute percentage of muslums and also provide me with a percentage for those muslums who are sympathetic to the radicals and explain to me how they are any different?

Uh, no, I don't think I'll be doing that. Mostly because I made no claims as to what percentage of Muslims think one way or the other...I simply questioned the wisdom (and morality) of treating all Muslims as some sort of homogeneous bunch of terrorists who all need to be treated as dire threats to our way of life. Since the natural order of ANY group does not seem to include being a bunch of interchangeable robots who all view things exactly the same way, I think the burden of proof is on the people who suggest that for some reason Muslims buck this trend and are all just as bad as Osama bin Laden types.

But here's why I tend to think proof that all Muslims are violent fanatics or supportive of violent fanatics will not be forthcoming...there are how many hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world? If they were all terrorists or supportive of terrorists, shouldn't we hear more about it? We should be having a 9/11 ever few days, the way things happen during an actual war against that many people. Instead, we have a media and a public focusing SO hard on a relatively small number of incidents that they seem to forget that there are hundreds of millions of members of that group who are just going about their business. We have a few million Muslims in the US...how many of them have engaged in terrorist activities?

By the way, and this is just some advice for the future, condescension works a lot better if you are smarter...just a thought.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
2 problems with that movie. First, no reputable director would have an endorsement from Michael Medved as his most prominent one.

Second, the whole comparison of todays radical Islamists and the Nazis is a joke. The idea that a segment of the planet that is largely impoverished, dependent on a single natural resource, and consumed by racial, social, and ethnic tensions is as large (or larger!?!!) a threat to the world as a power that controlled Europe with millions and millions of soldiers, tens of thousands of tanks, airplanes, and the like... is a stupid idea.

Yeah, they indoctrinate their kids and that's bad. Yeah they blow up things and that's bad. In order to fight them effectively we need clarity of vision as to what they really are... and world dominating nazis they ain't.

Let's also not mention that Nazism was a political and economic movement and not a religious one. Or that Islamic radicalism which is basically a form of religious fundamentalism based on Islam and based in the Middle East has no relation to or bearing to Nazism which is in whole and solely a European invention.

We are dealing with social religious conservatism gone awry here not with a political system tied to ethnic cleansing and a over riding master race theory which was invented by European minds.