The Power of Nightmares and the Noble Lie

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Termagant
You can see the hysteria in this thread.

Those who need external threats to feel "whole" were at a loss after the fall of the big bad USSR. "Global Radical Islam" out to kill every one of us can fill the void.

And the Neocon view of "Noble Lies" and the accompanying elitism is about as un-American as a philosophy can get. The Neocons would have been very good Soviets.

You thinking people who see a realistic view of the world need external threats to feel "whole" says a lot more about your state of mind... but I don't expect you to understand that.

After all, the "big bad" USSR's totalitarianism, 30 million dead, and ideological imperialism was excused and minimized, just as the same self-hating blame America first tools today excuse and minimize the current threat.

Talking about "hysteria" and how Islam is "out to kill every one of us" is an immature fantasy people like you have dreamed up to rationalize your crackbrained attitude towards facing radical Islam.

Your post, and the OP, is a wake-up call for rational people. Normal people will vigorously debate and discuss what do do and how to do it. Extremist, almost comical cries that we've all been duped by a conspiracy, and there is NO threat, will be tucked safely into the "delirious fringe" category. Pity.

I feel compelled to respond because you have personally attacked me in the typical immature manner....

If you have viewed the film you will understand the point I was making, a point also made by a later poster: that the NeoCons over-hyped the threat posed by the Soviet Union toward the end of the Cold War to further their own domestic agendas. The prime example being "Team B" which basically concocted evidence of Soviet "super weapons" and capabilities. Many of the same people concocted and massaged evidence to further their plans for invasion of Iraq. The crack-brained theories belong to the NeoCons who envisioned mythical Soviet weapons, then envisioned mythical Iraqi weapons, and continue to envision a mythical global Jihadist conspiracy. The reality is that Al Qaeda is operationally limited and Muslim Jihadists are disparate and in many ways dysfunctional. One only needs to look at how they perform when faced by the US military on even terms.

Those are the facts. I am not here to "blame America first" or live up to your other ridiculous talking points. The fact is though, that many people need an external threat to feel at peace. Furthermore, one of the stated fundamental goals of the NeoCon philosophy is to unite the population around an external threat to promote domestic social cohesiveness. This idea stemmed from the domestic conflict during Vietnam which was very frightening to some children of the 1950s.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Termagant
If you have viewed the film you will understand the point I was making, a point also made by a later poster: that the NeoCons over-hyped the threat posed by the Soviet Union toward the end of the Cold War to further their own domestic agendas. The prime example being "Team B" which basically concocted evidence of Soviet "super weapons" and capabilities. Many of the same people concocted and massaged evidence to further their plans for invasion of Iraq. The crack-brained theories belong to the NeoCons who envisioned mythical Soviet weapons, then envisioned mythical Iraqi weapons, and continue to envision a mythical global Jihadist conspiracy. The reality is that Al Qaeda is operationally limited and Muslim Jihadists are disparate and in many ways dysfunctional. One only needs to look at how they perform when faced by the US military on even terms.

Those are the facts. I am not here to "blame America first" or live up to your other ridiculous talking points. The fact is though, that many people need an external threat to feel at peace. Furthermore, one of the stated fundamental goals of the NeoCon philosophy is to unite the population around an external threat to promote domestic social cohesiveness. This idea stemmed from the domestic conflict during Vietnam which was very frightening to some children of the 1950s.

I have viewed the videos... this is actually a repost.

If you want to carry out some zealous witch hunt for a handful of evil, conspiring intellectuals who supposedly have hoodwinked this country and managed to implement their nefarious agenda, go right ahead. Go BBC! :roll:

You are right: You can see the hysteria in this thread.

 

[Vich]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I've been face-to-face with Islamic fascism, and its history goes back hundreds upon hundreds of years. Anyone who would deny it's existence, or label it "fantasy," is absolutely nucking futs.

LOL! that video goes wayyyyy beyond tinfoil... please tell me that you dont seriously buy into that garbage... do you?

It doesn't surprise me that Narmer posted this.

ROFL.

Narmer you are actually in a semi-conscious state sitting in a giant incubator with a cord plugged into your brain. You arent even alive, this is a fantasy!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Termagant
If you have viewed the film you will understand the point I was making, a point also made by a later poster: that the NeoCons over-hyped the threat posed by the Soviet Union toward the end of the Cold War to further their own domestic agendas. The prime example being "Team B" which basically concocted evidence of Soviet "super weapons" and capabilities. Many of the same people concocted and massaged evidence to further their plans for invasion of Iraq. The crack-brained theories belong to the NeoCons who envisioned mythical Soviet weapons, then envisioned mythical Iraqi weapons, and continue to envision a mythical global Jihadist conspiracy. The reality is that Al Qaeda is operationally limited and Muslim Jihadists are disparate and in many ways dysfunctional. One only needs to look at how they perform when faced by the US military on even terms.

Those are the facts. I am not here to "blame America first" or live up to your other ridiculous talking points. The fact is though, that many people need an external threat to feel at peace. Furthermore, one of the stated fundamental goals of the NeoCon philosophy is to unite the population around an external threat to promote domestic social cohesiveness. This idea stemmed from the domestic conflict during Vietnam which was very frightening to some children of the 1950s.

I have viewed the videos... this is actually a repost.

If you want to carry out some zealous witch hunt for a handful of evil, conspiring intellectuals who supposedly have hoodwinked this country and managed to implement their nefarious agenda, go right ahead. Go BBC! :roll:

You are right: You can see the hysteria in this thread.

I tire of your not so subtle patronizing.

The US may not be hoodwinked but a certain not so sharp president is/was a ripe target for hoodwinking.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer
EDIT: There is a threat, but it takes good, old-fashion common sense and police work to take care of that threat. Not some Global War on Terror. Terrorism can never be defeated with bombs and bullets.

What, on your personal resume, gives you special insight as to how to solve the problem of terrorism?

Let me guess, you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...?

but seriously, from what great cistern of knowledge do you draw these conclusions?

 

[Vich]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer
EDIT: There is a threat, but it takes good, old-fashion common sense and police work to take care of that threat. Not some Global War on Terror. Terrorism can never be defeated with bombs and bullets.

What, on your personal resume, gives you insight as to how to solve the problem of terrorism?

Let me guess, you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...?

but seriously, from what great cistern of knowledge do you draw these conclusions?

LOL stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, HAH!

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer
EDIT: There is a threat, but it takes good, old-fashion common sense and police work to take care of that threat. Not some Global War on Terror. Terrorism can never be defeated with bombs and bullets.

What, on your personal resume, gives you special insight as to how to solve the problem of terrorism?

Let me guess, you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...?

but seriously, from what great cistern of knowledge do you draw these conclusions?

For a start, "terrorism" is a biased word. So too is "liberation". A proper word would be uprising or insurgency. History is littered with insurgencies, where the two most famous are the American and French Revolutions. Even the modern state of Israel, and just about every nation that was colonized, had its birth in an insurgency. The kings that ruled those nations would've called the insurgents "terrorists", but considering that these people are fight with what they have and for their fundamental rights to self-rule, their violent refusal to be ruled is just that, violent, which doesn't make their claims any less just. I believe Sun Tzu was the first to say that terrorism could never be defeated and history has proven him right because these terrorist acts are the actions of a few who speak for the majority.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer
EDIT: There is a threat, but it takes good, old-fashion common sense and police work to take care of that threat. Not some Global War on Terror. Terrorism can never be defeated with bombs and bullets.

What, on your personal resume, gives you special insight as to how to solve the problem of terrorism?

Let me guess, you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...?

but seriously, from what great cistern of knowledge do you draw these conclusions?

What on your resume' gives you that insight? Are you trying to say that by being a grunt in Iraq you have some sort of unique knowledge? That's like saying a single person in an auto assembly line knows how to build a whole car. I wish you would stop acting like your very limited experience gives you any kind of authority on this matter. I was in the military, same as you. I was in the war, same as you... and I don't make those claims.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conjur
Wow, look at the Bushbots fall over themselves to attack this excellent BBC documentary with all sorts of ridiculous crap. It's obviously struck a nerve deep in the psyche of the mentally facile.

Especially when put into proper context of "Neoconservatism and Islamicfascism".

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Narmer
For a start, "terrorism" is a biased word. So too is "liberation". A proper word would be uprising or insurgency. History is littered with insurgencies, where the two most famous are the American and French Revolutions. Even the modern state of Israel, and just about every nation that was colonized, had its birth in an insurgency. The kings that ruled those nations would've called the insurgents "terrorists", but considering that these people are fight with what they have and for their fundamental rights to self-rule, their violent refusal to be ruled is just that, violent, which doesn't make their claims any less just. I believe Sun Tzu was the first to say that terrorism could never be defeated and history has proven him right because these terrorist acts are the actions of a few who speak for the majority.

It sounds like you're equating an insurgent with a terrorist, which of course is wrong. The people whose job it is to analyze these things, like the US Army, know the difference.

Insurgency: An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through us of subversion and armed conflict. (the goal is a counterstate)

Terrorism: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

There are a variety of elements, dynamics, and components of insurgencies that have nothing to do with terrorism. That said, insurgencies can use terrorism as a tactic. Can.

I'll take this chance to post an excellent listing of sources germane to terrorist financing for any rational person interested in, or researching this topic. It's the financing that really fuels the Salafism/Wahhabism movement -- as opposed to pure religious ideology.

Terrorist Financing Bibliography

Aenlle-Rocha, Fernando L. "Correspondent Banking After
September 11," Los Angeles Lawyer September 2002: pp.
27-31.

Aninat, Eduardo; Hardy, Daniel; and Barry R. Johnston.
"Combatting Money Laundering and the Financing of
Terrorism," Finance and Development vol. 39, no. 3;
September 2002: pp. 44-47.

"Essential Laws of the United States on Money
Laundering and Terrorist Financing." Money Laundering
Alert. Miami, FL: Alert Global Media, 2002.

Bantekas, Ilias. "The International Law of Terrorist
Financing," American Journal of International Law,
vol. 97, no. 2, April 2003, pp. 315-333.

El-Qorchi, Muhammed. "Hawala: How Does This Informal
Funds Transfer System Work, and Should It Be
Regulated?," Finance & Development, December 2002, pp.
31-33.

Farah, Douglas. Blood From Stones: The Secret
Financial Network of Terror. New York: Broadway Books,
2004.

Francis, David R. "The War on Terror Money," Christian
Science Monitor, April 8, 2004, p.14.

Jackson, James K. The Financial Action Task Force: An
Overview. Washington, DC: Library of Congress,
Congressional Research Service, 6 August 2004. 6 p.

Kaplan, David E. "Investigative Report: Hearts, Minds,
and Dollars," U.S. News and World Report (April 25,
2005): 24-33

Kochan, Nick. The Washing Machine. Mason, OH: Thomson,
2005.

Levitt, Matthew. "Stemming the Flow of Terrorist
Financing: Practical and Conceptual Challenges,"
Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, vol. 27, no. 1,
Winter-Spring, 2003, pp. 59-70.

Masciandaro, Donato, ed. Global Financial Crime:
Terrorism, Money Laundering and Offshore Centers.
Aldershoy [UK] and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004.

Meyer, Josh. "Cutting Money Flow to Terrorists Proves
Difficult," Los Angeles Times, September 28, 2003,
p.A1.

Nai´m, Moise´s. Illicit: How Smugglers,
Traffickers and Copycats are Hijacking the Global
Economy. New York : Doubleday, 2005.

Napoleoni, Loretta. Modern Jihad: Tracing the Dollars
Behind the Terror Networks. London, UK and Sterling,
VA: Pluto, 2003.

Norgren, Chris. "The Control of Risks Associated with
Crime, Terror and Subversion," Journal of Money
Laundering Control, vol. 7, no. 3, Winter 2004, pp.
201-205.

Pieth, Mark, ed. Financing Terrorism. Dordrecht [Neth]
and Boston {MA]: Kluwer Academic, 2002.

Prados, Alfred B. and Christopher M. Blanchard. Saudi
Arabia: Terrorist Financing Issues, Washington, DC:
Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 5
August 2004. 20 p.

Richardson, Harry W., Peter Gordon, James E. Moore,
eds. The Economic Impacts of Terrorist Attacks.
Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2005.

Sanderson, Thomas M. "Transnational Terror and
Organized Crime: Blurring the Lines," SAIS Review,
vol. 24, no. 1, Winter 2004, pp. 49-61.

Taylor, Robert M. "Anti-Money and Anti-Terrorist
Financing Requirements Applicable to Financial
Institutions," Banking Law Journal, vol. 120, no. 6,
June 2003, pp. 497-504.

Vistica, Gregory L. "Frozen Assets Going to Legal
Bills," Washington Post, November 1, 2003, p.A06.

Weiss, Martin A. Terrorist Financing: the 9/11
Commission Recommendation. Washington, DC: Library of
Congress, Congressional Research Service, 5 August
2004. 6 p.

I should also mention one of the earliest works on the topic: "The Financing of Terror" by James Adams. It's a slim volume that led to Adams being sued by Thomas "Slab" Murphy. This was a big mistake as it allowed Murphy to be exposed as a key figure in the leadership of the IRA.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The hilarious part of that video is that it used fear mongering to condemn the use of fear.

You didn't enjoy the documentary?

overall, I thought it was a very interesting documentary. I've downloaded it via emule to watch again.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Narmer
For a start, "terrorism" is a biased word. So too is "liberation". A proper word would be uprising or insurgency. History is littered with insurgencies, where the two most famous are the American and French Revolutions. Even the modern state of Israel, and just about every nation that was colonized, had its birth in an insurgency. The kings that ruled those nations would've called the insurgents "terrorists", but considering that these people are fight with what they have and for their fundamental rights to self-rule, their violent refusal to be ruled is just that, violent, which doesn't make their claims any less just. I believe Sun Tzu was the first to say that terrorism could never be defeated and history has proven him right because these terrorist acts are the actions of a few who speak for the majority.

It sounds like you're equating an insurgent with a terrorist, which of course is wrong. The people whose job it is to analyze these things, like the US Army, know the difference.

Insurgency: An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through us of subversion and armed conflict. (the goal is a counterstate)

Terrorism: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

There are a variety of elements, dynamics, and components of insurgencies that have nothing to do with terrorism. That said, insurgencies can use terrorism as a tactic. Can.

I'll take this chance to post an excellent listing of sources germane to terrorist financing for any rational person interested in, or researching this topic. It's the financing that really fuels the Salafism/Wahhabism movement -- as opposed to pure religious ideology.

blah blah blah...

lol. Tell me, what is lawful violence?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer
EDIT: There is a threat, but it takes good, old-fashion common sense and police work to take care of that threat. Not some Global War on Terror. Terrorism can never be defeated with bombs and bullets.

What, on your personal resume, gives you special insight as to how to solve the problem of terrorism?

Let me guess, you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...?

but seriously, from what great cistern of knowledge do you draw these conclusions?

What on your resume' gives you that insight? Are you trying to say that by being a grunt in Iraq you have some sort of unique knowledge? That's like saying a single person in an auto assembly line knows how to build a whole car. I wish you would stop acting like your very limited experience gives you any kind of authority on this matter. I was in the military, same as you. I was in the war, same as you... and I don't make those claims.

my experience and knowledge of terrorism and Islam goes well beyond my tours as an infantryman. I am currently studying these subjects collegiately, and I happen to work as both a civilian and a Reservist in a position that allows for very intimate exposure to the GWOT, on a daily basis.

Let's just say that I "eat, sleep, and breath" counter-terrorism. Beyond that, the specifics of my resume are none of your business.

That is why I asked Narmer about his point of reference. I did not want to assume that he didn't have one, so I asked. I'm still curious what experience he has in this field...

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Narmer
lol. Tell me, what is lawful violence?

Are you some sort of pacifist or something?

Lawful violence is violence that falls under some recognized rules. Like self-defense. Or Cops can use lawful violence. It's the same on the national and international stage. The Geneva Conventions are an example.

What's so funny about such a simple concept?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer
EDIT: There is a threat, but it takes good, old-fashion common sense and police work to take care of that threat. Not some Global War on Terror. Terrorism can never be defeated with bombs and bullets.

What, on your personal resume, gives you special insight as to how to solve the problem of terrorism?

Let me guess, you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...?

but seriously, from what great cistern of knowledge do you draw these conclusions?

What on your resume' gives you that insight? Are you trying to say that by being a grunt in Iraq you have some sort of unique knowledge? That's like saying a single person in an auto assembly line knows how to build a whole car. I wish you would stop acting like your very limited experience gives you any kind of authority on this matter. I was in the military, same as you. I was in the war, same as you... and I don't make those claims.

my experience and knowledge of terrorism and Islam goes well beyond my tours as an infantryman. I am currently studying these subjects collegiately, and I happen to work as both a civilian and a Reservist in a position that allows for very intimate exposure to the GWOT, on a daily basis.

Let's just say that I "eat, sleep, and breath" counter-terrorism. Beyond that, the specifics of my resume are none of your business.

That is why I asked Narmer about his point of reference. I did not want to assume that he didn't have one, so I asked. I'm still curious what experience he has in this field...

From what you just said it looks like this is your job. Just like a grave-digger would be out of a job if nobody died, you are out of a job if there is no "War on Terror". You need these people to attack us or else you're just wasting taxpayer's money by your line of work. You are part of the problem because you hype the problem. You do it for your own sake and not for the sake of the nation.

Those intelligence you get are as flawed as the reasons to go to war with Iraq. And it all reeks of hyprocisy. We are harrassing Arab boys/men in this country when they've done nothing wrong (don't believe me? look at your "intelligence" on all those cases in Lackawanna, Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, and so on). In the meantime, we support dictators and oppressive kings in the Middle East and Pakistan, the VERY SOURCE of these problems. It is this double-standard that feeds the terrorists, which feeds the neoconservates, which feeds you. But, hey, so long as everybody's fed, what's not to like? Deep deep in your heart, people like you want bin Laden to stay loose so you can keep your job.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Narmer
lol. Tell me, what is lawful violence?

Are you some sort of pacifist or something?

Lawful violence is violence that falls under some recognized rules. Like self-defense. Or Cops can use lawful violence. It's the same on the national and international stage. The Geneva Conventions are an example.

What's so funny about such a simple concept?

So if I want a change of leadership and the king refuses to step down, all those insurgents and terrorists throughout history should've abided by the rules and regulations they sought to overthrow? Are you stupid?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Narmer
lol. Tell me, what is lawful violence?

Are you some sort of pacifist or something?

Lawful violence is violence that falls under some recognized rules. Like self-defense. Or Cops can use lawful violence. It's the same on the national and international stage. The Geneva Conventions are an example.

What's so funny about such a simple concept?

So if I want a change of leadership and the king refuses to step down, all those insurgents and terrorists throughout history should've abided by the rules and regulations they sought to overthrow? Are you stupid?

Here is a hint, maybe they shouldn't blow up innocent women and children. Is that too hard for you to understand?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Narmer
lol. Tell me, what is lawful violence?

Are you some sort of pacifist or something?

Lawful violence is violence that falls under some recognized rules. Like self-defense. Or Cops can use lawful violence. It's the same on the national and international stage. The Geneva Conventions are an example.

What's so funny about such a simple concept?

So if I want a change of leadership and the king refuses to step down, all those insurgents and terrorists throughout history should've abided by the rules and regulations they sought to overthrow? Are you stupid?

Obviously, like in the case of the US revolution, they saw the established rules as unlawful. It's not like there can't be disagreement over what lawful is...

I can't believe you can't even recognize such a fundamental and accepted concept as lawful violence. I guess law enforcement and the military shouldn't be able to use violence :roll: :roll:

Let me ask you a simple question. Be honest and just say yes or no: Is/was the US involvement in Iraq illegal?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

It should be noted that the neoconservatives' strain of authoritarianism is just the American version of the same military fascist segment that exists and has existed in every political system in human history.

What perhaps shocks (or should shock) people so much about this particular brand exibited by the Kristols and Cheneys is that our country tends to regard itself, naively, as being too pure and free from that corrosive philosophy.

There's an assumption that, in the United States of America, of course the same venal authoritarianism of those "other" countries could never flourish here.

People need to understand that there is nothing in our American political "genes" that immunizes us from fascistic movements. Sure, our system is structured to resist it and was founded to reject it, and our history shows that we tend to regain our balance when pulled toward authoritarianism, but we have to acknowledge that this mentality is to some degree intrinsic to humanity itself, and we must never assume that it could never take hold here.

It's wholly unremarkable to note the plain and obvious fact that the neoconservative philosophy is as anathema to our constitutional identity as can be. That so many shrug off fascistic comments from prominent pundits and leaders, or actively support those comments as some bastardization of patriotism, is the truly sad part of this story.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer
From what you just said it looks like this is your job. Just like a grave-digger would be out of a job if nobody died, you are out of a job if there is no "War on Terror". You need these people to attack us or else you're just wasting taxpayer's money by your line of work. You are part of the problem because you hype the problem. You do it for your own sake and not for the sake of the nation.

I do it because somebody has to do it. Whenever a good friend or member of my family mentions how much "job security" I have because of the current GWOT, I like to reply with "I'm in the one line of work wherein I'd love to wake up one morning and have no more customers."

I'd gladly switch to academia, or perhaps run charter boats on an island soemwhere. But, like I said, somebody has to do it, so here I am.

For you to accuse me of promoting or encouraging terrorism for my own material interests is beyond ridiculous. You have no f'n clue what drives and motivates men like me to do what we do.

Those intelligence you get are as flawed as the reasons to go to war with Iraq. And it all reeks of hyprocisy. We are harrassing Arab boys/men in this country when they've done nothing wrong (don't believe me? look at your "intelligence" on all those cases in Lackawanna, Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, and so on).

you've seen the reports? What do they say? do tell! My guess is that you've just read about them in the NYT or heard about them on the internet... but hey, I could be wrong...

In the meantime, we support dictators and oppressive kings in the Middle East and Pakistan, the VERY SOURCE of these problems.

They are part of the problem, yes. But to label them as "the VERY SOURCE" is a bit simplistic and inaccurate.

It is this double-standard that feeds the terrorists, which feeds the neoconservatives, which feeds you. But, hey, so long as everybody's fed, what's not to like? Deep deep in your heart, people like you want bin Laden to stay loose so you can keep your job.

I'd like nothing more than to personally put a bullet between OBL's eyes.

Like I said above, you have no f'n clue what motivates men and women like me to do what we do. You love to postulate based upon what you've seen from Hollywood, what you've read in the NYT, or what you know about that one guy you knew in college who joined the Army; but, in reality, you're just guessing and stereotyping.

Above all else, you think you're smarter and better than anyone "dumb enough" to fight for America. John Kerry's mishandled joke was right on the money according to you and yours. You genuinely believe that anyone who agrees with the GWOT, in any capacity, is somehow a brainless automaton who goes around nodding their head at everything coming out of the mouths of this Administration.

One thing you absolutely NEED to realize is that those of us working this fight, on the ground level, don't really give two sh*ts about national politics. When the bullets are flying, or you have an important job to do, the last g'damn thing on your mind is the latest scoop or press conference coming out of Washington...

you, my confused little leftist friend, need to stop assuming that you know anything about the real GWOT, and those actually fighting it.

/rant off

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
It should be noted that the neoconservatives' strain of authoritarianism is just the American version of the same military fascist segment that exists and has existed in every political system in human history.

What perhaps shocks (or should shock) people so much about this particular brand exibited by the Kristols and Cheneys is that our country tends to regard itself, naively, as being too pure and free from that corrosive philosophy.

There's an assumption that, in the United States of America, of course the same venal authoritarianism of those "other" countries could never flourish here.

People need to understand that there is nothing in our American political "genes" that immunizes us from fascistic movements. Sure, our system is structured to resist it and was founded to reject it, and our history shows that we tend to regain our balance when pulled toward authoritarianism, but we have to acknowledge that this mentality is to some degree intrinsic to humanity itself, and we must never assume that it could never take hold here.

It's wholly unremarkable to note the plain and obvious fact that the neoconservative philosophy is as anathema to our constitutional identity as can be.

That so many shrug off fascistic comments from prominent pundits and leaders, or actively support those comments as some bastardization of patriotism, is the truly sad part of this story.

Welcome to P&N

So true, the fact that Rush, Hannity etc flourished like they did (I'm sure their ratings are in the toilet now, thank god) and the resident Republicans in here supporting the aniliation of the U.S. from within was so rampant is so sad indeed.

Hopefully it was saved from the brink in time.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer
From what you just said it looks like this is your job. Just like a grave-digger would be out of a job if nobody died, you are out of a job if there is no "War on Terror". You need these people to attack us or else you're just wasting taxpayer's money by your line of work. You are part of the problem because you hype the problem. You do it for your own sake and not for the sake of the nation.

I do it because somebody has to do it. Whenever a good friend or member of my family mentions how much "job security" I have because of the current GWOT, I like to reply with "I'm in the one line of work wherein I'd love to wake up one morning and have no more customers."

I'd gladly switch to academia, or perhaps run charter boats on an island soemwhere. But, like I said, somebody has to do it, so here I am.

For you to accuse me of promoting or encouraging terrorism for my own material interests is beyond ridiculous. You have no f'n clue what drives and motivates men like me to do what we do.

Those intelligence you get are as flawed as the reasons to go to war with Iraq. And it all reeks of hyprocisy. We are harrassing Arab boys/men in this country when they've done nothing wrong (don't believe me? look at your "intelligence" on all those cases in Lackawanna, Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, and so on).

you've seen the reports? What do they say? do tell! My guess is that you've just read about them in the NYT or heard about them on the internet... but hey, I could be wrong...

In the meantime, we support dictators and oppressive kings in the Middle East and Pakistan, the VERY SOURCE of these problems.

They are part of the problem, yes. But to label them as "the VERY SOURCE" is a bit simplistic and inaccurate.

It is this double-standard that feeds the terrorists, which feeds the neoconservatives, which feeds you. But, hey, so long as everybody's fed, what's not to like? Deep deep in your heart, people like you want bin Laden to stay loose so you can keep your job.

I'd like nothing more than to personally put a bullet between OBL's eyes.

Like I said above, you have no f'n clue what motivates men and women like me to do what we do. You love to postulate based upon what you've seen from Hollywood, what you've read in the NYT, or what you know about that one guy you knew in college who joined the Army; but, in reality, you're just guessing and stereotyping.

Above all else, you think you're smarter and better than anyone "dumb enough" to fight for America. John Kerry's mishandled joke was right on the money according to you and yours. You genuinely believe that anyone who agrees with the GWOT, in any capacity, is somehow a brainless automaton who goes around nodding their head at everything coming out of the mouths of this Administration.

One thing you absolutely NEED to realize is that those of us working this fight, on the ground level, don't really give two sh*ts about national politics. When the bullets are flying, or you have an important job to do, the last g'damn thing on your mind is the latest scoop or press conference coming out of Washington...

you, my confused little leftist friend, need to stop assuming that you know anything about the real GWOT, and those actually fighting it.

/rant off

You're a liar if you're telling me you don't gave a damn about politics. You're in here everyday spreading your job security and, while you're at it, denouncing politicians that are against you. You're knee-deep in the political game. Somebody has to do it? Well, I'm glad we don't have hotheads working in the intelligence who are politically bias. Luckly for America, we have people like you protecting us from harm.:roll:

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Narmer
lol. Tell me, what is lawful violence?

Are you some sort of pacifist or something?

Lawful violence is violence that falls under some recognized rules. Like self-defense. Or Cops can use lawful violence. It's the same on the national and international stage. The Geneva Conventions are an example.

What's so funny about such a simple concept?

So if I want a change of leadership and the king refuses to step down, all those insurgents and terrorists throughout history should've abided by the rules and regulations they sought to overthrow? Are you stupid?

Obviously, like in the case of the US revolution, they saw the established rules as unlawful. It's not like there can't be disagreement over what lawful is...

I can't believe you can't even recognize such a fundamental and accepted concept as lawful violence. I guess law enforcement and the military shouldn't be able to use violence :roll: :roll:

Let me ask you a simple question. Be honest and just say yes or no: Is/was the US involvement in Iraq illegal?

The military and law enforcement ostensibly work for the people, but they answer to the government. So if the people want to overthrow the government, they have to defeat or convince the military otherwise. There's no amount of lawful violence that can defeat an army (at least none that I've heard of).

As for the US invasion of Iraq being illegal? There are lots of legal and illegal activities going on around the world. Obviously we support the enforcement of the law when it suits us and turn a blind eye when our allies (or we) are breaking such laws. Hence, legality should be answered by those that are more adept at international law. But the case for war, the threat, was all a fantasy that was exploited by our leaders. The noble lies they told were a phantom. They got what they wanted, more hate, which is the necessary excuse to stay there. But at what cost and who is going to pay the price? Don't let fear keep you from asking hard questions.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Narmer
The military and law enforcement ostensibly work for the people, but they answer to the government. So if the people want to overthrow the government, they have to defeat or convince the military otherwise. There's no amount of lawful violence that can defeat an army (at least none that I've heard of).

As for the US invasion of Iraq being illegal? There are lots of legal and illegal activities going on around the world. Obviously we support the enforcement of the law when it suits us and turn a blind eye when our allies (or we) are breaking such laws. Hence, legality should be answered by those that are more adept at international law. But the case for war, the threat, was all a fantasy that was exploited by our leaders. The noble lies they told were a phantom. They got what they wanted, more hate, which is the necessary excuse to stay there. But at what cost and who is going to pay the price? Don't let fear keep you from asking hard questions.

You haven't said a damn thing there, do you moonlight as a presidential spokesman? You say don't believe in a concept of lawful violence. That's all you need to say. IMO, that makes you a parasite living off the people and principles that protect your existence.

But the funny -or sad- thing is, you talk about whether certain actions have legality, and mention "international law." People like you will say how the Iraq invasion was illegal. Doesn't this all PRECLUDE that certain actions can also be lawful?

Do you people just chant the mantra like parrots, or do you actually think about what you say? You say there's no such thing as lawful violence, yet your thought processes necessitate its validity.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer
From what you just said it looks like this is your job. Just like a grave-digger would be out of a job if nobody died, you are out of a job if there is no "War on Terror". You need these people to attack us or else you're just wasting taxpayer's money by your line of work. You are part of the problem because you hype the problem. You do it for your own sake and not for the sake of the nation.

I do it because somebody has to do it. Whenever a good friend or member of my family mentions how much "job security" I have because of the current GWOT, I like to reply with "I'm in the one line of work wherein I'd love to wake up one morning and have no more customers."

I'd gladly switch to academia, or perhaps run charter boats on an island soemwhere. But, like I said, somebody has to do it, so here I am.

For you to accuse me of promoting or encouraging terrorism for my own material interests is beyond ridiculous. You have no f'n clue what drives and motivates men like me to do what we do.

Those intelligence you get are as flawed as the reasons to go to war with Iraq. And it all reeks of hyprocisy. We are harrassing Arab boys/men in this country when they've done nothing wrong (don't believe me? look at your "intelligence" on all those cases in Lackawanna, Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, and so on).

you've seen the reports? What do they say? do tell! My guess is that you've just read about them in the NYT or heard about them on the internet... but hey, I could be wrong...

In the meantime, we support dictators and oppressive kings in the Middle East and Pakistan, the VERY SOURCE of these problems.

They are part of the problem, yes. But to label them as "the VERY SOURCE" is a bit simplistic and inaccurate.

It is this double-standard that feeds the terrorists, which feeds the neoconservatives, which feeds you. But, hey, so long as everybody's fed, what's not to like? Deep deep in your heart, people like you want bin Laden to stay loose so you can keep your job.

I'd like nothing more than to personally put a bullet between OBL's eyes.

Like I said above, you have no f'n clue what motivates men and women like me to do what we do. You love to postulate based upon what you've seen from Hollywood, what you've read in the NYT, or what you know about that one guy you knew in college who joined the Army; but, in reality, you're just guessing and stereotyping.

Above all else, you think you're smarter and better than anyone "dumb enough" to fight for America. John Kerry's mishandled joke was right on the money according to you and yours. You genuinely believe that anyone who agrees with the GWOT, in any capacity, is somehow a brainless automaton who goes around nodding their head at everything coming out of the mouths of this Administration.

One thing you absolutely NEED to realize is that those of us working this fight, on the ground level, don't really give two sh*ts about national politics. When the bullets are flying, or you have an important job to do, the last g'damn thing on your mind is the latest scoop or press conference coming out of Washington...

you, my confused little leftist friend, need to stop assuming that you know anything about the real GWOT, and those actually fighting it.

/rant off

You're a liar if you're telling me you don't gave a damn about politics. You're in here everyday spreading your job security and, while you're at it, denouncing politicians that are against you. You're knee-deep in the political game. Somebody has to do it? Well, I'm glad we don't have hotheads working in the intelligence who are politically bias. Luckly for America, we have people like you protecting us from harm.:roll:

At work, we try not to allow domestic divisive politics to drive our day-to-day decisions. At home? I personally enjoy a decent political debate from time to time - hence my posting here to pass the downtime; but, i dont let it impact my job very much.... do you?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer
From what you just said it looks like this is your job. Just like a grave-digger would be out of a job if nobody died, you are out of a job if there is no "War on Terror". You need these people to attack us or else you're just wasting taxpayer's money by your line of work. You are part of the problem because you hype the problem. You do it for your own sake and not for the sake of the nation.

I do it because somebody has to do it. Whenever a good friend or member of my family mentions how much "job security" I have because of the current GWOT, I like to reply with "I'm in the one line of work wherein I'd love to wake up one morning and have no more customers."

I'd gladly switch to academia, or perhaps run charter boats on an island soemwhere. But, like I said, somebody has to do it, so here I am.

For you to accuse me of promoting or encouraging terrorism for my own material interests is beyond ridiculous. You have no f'n clue what drives and motivates men like me to do what we do.

Those intelligence you get are as flawed as the reasons to go to war with Iraq. And it all reeks of hyprocisy. We are harrassing Arab boys/men in this country when they've done nothing wrong (don't believe me? look at your "intelligence" on all those cases in Lackawanna, Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, and so on).

you've seen the reports? What do they say? do tell! My guess is that you've just read about them in the NYT or heard about them on the internet... but hey, I could be wrong...

In the meantime, we support dictators and oppressive kings in the Middle East and Pakistan, the VERY SOURCE of these problems.

They are part of the problem, yes. But to label them as "the VERY SOURCE" is a bit simplistic and inaccurate.

It is this double-standard that feeds the terrorists, which feeds the neoconservatives, which feeds you. But, hey, so long as everybody's fed, what's not to like? Deep deep in your heart, people like you want bin Laden to stay loose so you can keep your job.

I'd like nothing more than to personally put a bullet between OBL's eyes.

Like I said above, you have no f'n clue what motivates men and women like me to do what we do. You love to postulate based upon what you've seen from Hollywood, what you've read in the NYT, or what you know about that one guy you knew in college who joined the Army; but, in reality, you're just guessing and stereotyping.

Above all else, you think you're smarter and better than anyone "dumb enough" to fight for America. John Kerry's mishandled joke was right on the money according to you and yours. You genuinely believe that anyone who agrees with the GWOT, in any capacity, is somehow a brainless automaton who goes around nodding their head at everything coming out of the mouths of this Administration.

One thing you absolutely NEED to realize is that those of us working this fight, on the ground level, don't really give two sh*ts about national politics. When the bullets are flying, or you have an important job to do, the last g'damn thing on your mind is the latest scoop or press conference coming out of Washington...

you, my confused little leftist friend, need to stop assuming that you know anything about the real GWOT, and those actually fighting it.

/rant off

You're a liar if you're telling me you don't gave a damn about politics. You're in here everyday spreading your job security and, while you're at it, denouncing politicians that are against you. You're knee-deep in the political game. Somebody has to do it? Well, I'm glad we don't have hotheads working in the intelligence who are politically bias. Luckly for America, we have people like you protecting us from harm.:roll:

At work, we try not to allow domestic divisive politics to drive our day-to-day decisions. At home? I personally enjoy a decent political debate from time to time - hence my posting here to pass the downtime; but, i dont let it impact my job very much.... do you?

I don't believe you at all. Your job is absolutely political in every sense of the word and it isn't just domestic politics, it's international politics as well. If it wasn't you wouldn't be there. Furthermore, I'm sure you guys discuss politics, like your delusional belief that anyone that fails to criticize Iran selling weapons that kill American troops is providing comfort to the enemy. That is your mindset and it permeates everything you do. So don't try to tell me that you are apolitical at work.