[hrothgar]

Robert, on Dec 6 2006, 10:17 AM, said:

Hi everyone

He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. 

He who finds himself 'without' a sword had better have a gun 'if' the other person has a sword and intends to use it.

If you want peace, prepare for war.

Roman matrons told their men to 'come back carrying your shield or on it.'  This custom declined, so did Rome. 

Maybe a decent army is not all that bad of an idea.   Certainly Poland in 1939 or France(plus other assorted nations) in 1940 would have been better off 'if' they had defeated the Nazi war machine.  Russia just barely had the army needed(after tens of millions of war dead) to defeat the Nazi war machine in four years of bloodly fighting.

What a load of unadulterated crap. This is the type of thinking that one expects of little boys [deleted section - inquiry ] It doesn't deserve a place in civilized discourse.

The United States spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. Our conventional war machine is more than capable of defeating any enemy on the field. Our nuclear arsenal can reduce entire countries into a pool of radioactive glass. Failure to prepare for war is hardly an issue for the US. One would hope that our little adventure in the desert would do a decent job dispelling simplistic pap of the sort that Robert is peddling.

Iraq has convincing demonstrated that there are limits to conventional power. Some of these limits are technical in nature... Our military is extremely good at killing people, but this doesn't matter if you don't know who you are supposed to kill and where they are located. Some of these limits are based on soft issues like morality. In theory, we could "solve" the problem in Iraq the same way that Rome solved the problem of Carthage or the way that Raymond of Toulouse dealt with the Albigensians. (How does the old saying go? "Kill them all. God will know his own") In practice, if the United States were to practice this type of genocide it would destroy our country.

Finally, and most importantly, its hard not to recall Bush's attack on "Nation Building" prior to the 2000 election. If anything, the last years have demonstrated that the US has a strong vested interest in promoting nation building around the world. I think that our real weakness is the strength, resolve, and capacity to succeed in this type of endeveour.

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2006-December-06, 11:27

[Al_U_Card]

The saddest aspect of 9/11 (other than the loss of loved ones) is the relegation of this event to the status of precursor such as "Jenkin's ear" or the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

The US military-industrial complex (Just how many billions are Haliburton et al making in Iraq?) latched on to this as the motherlode of incentive to whip paranoia to a point where no one would question their motives and any that did would be branded as unpatriotic, at least, and traitors/terrorists, at worst.

Wake up. It's never too late until it's too late....

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Those that do not study history will not have one.

hrothgar You seem to have the only correct opinion. How does having the only possible 'correct' opinion feel like? Can you also walk on water?

I strongly disagree with many(most?) of your opinions. Apparently that opens me up to attack. Thanks for showing off your good manners and style.

The pap that you are peddling appears to be very wrong IMO.

Civilized discourse is that what your ranting about little boys, tanks and any ideas that disagree with your ideas are always wrong?

Kill them all. Their Gods will know their own. One version that I have read.

Following your ideas might just also destroy America.

I am not a big fan of President Bush. I apparently have that right under U.S. law.

If some of your ideas are correct, I apparently cannot disagree with you without being attacked by your 'ranting and raving.'

Many thanks and Best Regards,
Robert

[Codo]

Hi Richard,

I wonder why your words had not been banned from this thread, because they are much too rude to be ignored.

This said and done ( to use one of your favourite words..): Roberts thoughts about how to handle conflicts and about right and wrong don´t sound ...

Hmm, well not easy to find words in a foreign language to say what I think.

So I will put it this way: I agree with your statement but not with your words.
And to ignore Roberts words seems the only way for me to handle them. They are at least thoughtless.

[inquiry]

I am not the moderator of the water cooler (rain is), but I stepped in due to two complaints about a post above.

Note, it is ok to attack someone's ideas here. "Your ideas are bad,,, full of pap... or whatever", but it is not ok to attack the individual. You may call my ideas stupid, but you may not call me stupid. At least that is what I read in the rules of the water cooler. The deleted section above seemed to cross sliglty over the line between attacking the idea someone posted to attacking the poster. Futher it skated close to being vulgar (it was reported to me as being vulgar). It is neither clear it absolutely broke the rules, but it was close enough on two fronts and it could be edited without chaning the content of the message, so I did so.

Try to keep it civil. Thanks,

ben

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on Dec 6 2006, 10:03 AM, said:

The saddest aspect of 9/11 (other than the loss of loved ones) is the relegation of this event to the status of precursor such as "Jenkin's ear" or the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. 

The US military-industrial complex (Just how many billions are Haliburton et al making in Iraq?) latched on to this as the motherlode of incentive to whip paranoia to a point where no one would question their motives and any that did would be branded as unpatriotic, at least, and traitors/terrorists, at worst.

Wake up.  It's never too late until it's too late....

I can only concur 100%. It does not matter any more whether you believe the "official" storyline of 9-11 or have "reasonable" doubts. The one thing that cannot be questioned is that this administration has used 9-11 and the threat of terroist attacks to decrease individual rights and increase executive power and to cast a pall of fear over the nation.

Regardless of what you believe about 9-11, the question we all should be demanding to know is how real are these threats, just how much risk is there? We should demand these answers from open congressional investigation before we allow our rights to be stripped. We cannot trust the administration alone to answer our demands as this administration has shown itself to be untrustworthy from declaring the air at ground zero to be safe in order to reopen Wall Street to WMD in Iraq and an Iraqui connection to al-qaeda in order to invade a country.

And consider this from today, 12-6-06 from the AP about Iaq violence:

Quote

The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.

"The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases." It said, for example, that a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack, and a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count, either. Also, if the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, that assault is not added to the database of violence incidents.

"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," the report said. (emphasis added)

Should we really trust these people to tell us the truth?

It is not the government who grants rights to U.S. citizens, but the citizens who grant power to the government. Before we allow our rights to be usurped, shouldn't we know the reason and level of threat?

[mike777]

Huh?


You want the government to investigate itself? Again for the millionth time?

I guess this time the committee to investigate will finally satisfy you?
How many committees do you need to see if the threat is real after 5 years, just one more?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Dec 6 2006, 06:37 PM, said:

Huh?


You want the government to investigate itself? Again for the millionth time?

I guess this time the committee to investigate will finally satisfy you?
How many committees do you need to see if the threat is real after 5 years, just one more?

Mike, that is a good point. Who would make a good non-partial investigating team?
Or do you think because President Bush, Homeland Security, and others in the executive branch reiterate the threat of a terror strike over and over that the assertion istself is de facto proof of the claim?

The fact that there has been no terrorist attack in the U.S. in 5 years is proof of nothing other than no terrorist has attacked in 5 years.

Nikita Khrushchev pounded his shoe on the table at the U.N. and claimed, "We will bury you." I suppose under modern theory that should have instigated an all-out invasion on the U.S.S.R. because it was a "threat to our national security."

In 2003, there were 213 deaths in Israel from terrorist attacks. The population is about 6 million. The odds of dying in a car wreck are considerably greater even in Israel than to be killed by terrorist attack.

I understand totally that a dirty bomb or a chemical weapon could cause untold grief and havoc on our country, but how Homeland Security's monitoring of a Quaker Peace Rally or a Veteran's Against the War rally prevents that kind of attack is too deep for me to understand.

I guess you have to be a C- student to understand terrorists to that depth.

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Dec 6 2006, 07:31 PM, said:

I am not the moderator of the water cooler (rain is), but I stepped in due to two complaints about a post above.

Note, it is ok to attack someone's ideas here. "Your ideas are bad,,, full of pap... or whatever", but it is not ok to attack the individual. You may call my ideas stupid, but you may not call me stupid. At least that is what I read in the rules of the water cooler. The deleted section above seemed to cross sliglty over the line between attacking the idea someone posted to attacking the poster. Futher it skated close to being vulgar (it was reported to me as being vulgar). It is neither clear it absolutely broke the rules, but it was close enough on two fronts and it could be edited without chaning the content of the message, so I did so.

Try to keep it civil. Thanks,

ben

Oh well. I really wish the moderators of this forum would act with more restraint in censoring. The more you moderate, the more you are responsible for the content you leave untouched. The more you moderate, the more you will get people complaining about stuff that isn't censored yet. The more you moderate, the more you will upset people whose comments got moderated. The more you moderate, the more you impose your own standard on what is too vulgar/too ... etc on others. (Remember that US standards for what is inacceptably vulgar are so far away from most European countries' standards that you could easily spend a whole night in a British or German pub entertaining people by making fun of US TV censorship etc.)

In this and other watercooler threads, we have some pretty strong clashes of opinion. It would be dishonest not to use strong language for that, and if someone uses a vulgar expression for that -- well it would not usually be my choice, but I would leave that decision to him. Richard's post was definitely better in illustrating his point than Codo...

This is not a complaint to any of the moderators, just a vote for giving more responsibility to the posters, and restraint in moderation unless clear rules have been clearly violated. (The comment you censored was IMO clearly attacking s.o.'s ideas, not s.o. personally.)

One comment by uday in another thread sticks to my memory, that summarizes my disagreement well: "This thread reflects badly on us." Quite wrong IMHO, whatever vulgar language, bad taste of jokes, personal attacks you can read in the forum here reflects (according to the judgment of the reader) badly on the individual poster, not on the BBF as a whole.

I meant to write something like the above for a long-term, this isn't a spontaneous reaction to this specific "censorship".

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on Dec 6 2006, 07:21 PM, said:

inquiry, on Dec 6 2006, 07:31 PM, said:

I am not the moderator of the water cooler  (rain is), but I stepped in due to two complaints about a post above.

Note, it is ok to attack someone's ideas  here. "Your ideas are bad,,, full of pap... or whatever", but it is not ok to attack the individual. You may call my ideas stupid, but you may not call me stupid. At least that is what I read in the rules of the water cooler. The deleted section above seemed to cross sliglty over the line between attacking the idea someone posted to attacking the poster. Futher it skated close to being vulgar (it was reported to me as being vulgar). It is neither clear it absolutely broke the rules, but it was close enough on two fronts and it could be edited without chaning the content of the message, so I did so.

Try to keep it civil. Thanks,

ben

Oh well. I really wish the moderators of this forum would act with more restraint in censoring. The more you moderate, the more you are responsible for the content you leave untouched. The more you moderate, the more you will get people complaining about stuff that isn't censored yet. The more you moderate, the more you will upset people whose comments got moderated. The more you moderate, the more you impose your own standard on what is too vulgar/too ... etc on others. (Remember that US standards for what is inacceptably vulgar are so far away from most European countries' standards that you could easily spend a whole night in a British or German pub entertaining people by making fun of US TV censorship etc.)

In this and other watercooler threads, we have some pretty strong clashes of opinion. It would be dishonest not to use strong language for that, and if someone uses a vulgar expression for that -- well it would not usually be my choice, but I would leave that decision to him. Richard's post was definitely better in illustrating his point than Codo...

This is not a complaint to any of the moderators, just a vote for giving more responsibility to the posters, and restraint in moderation unless clear rules have been clearly violated. (The comment you censored was IMO clearly attacking s.o.'s ideas, not s.o. personally.)

One comment by uday in another thread sticks to my memory, that summarizes my disagreement well: "This thread reflects badly on us." Quite wrong IMHO, whatever vulgar language, bad taste of jokes, personal attacks you can read in the forum here reflects (according to the judgment of the reader) badly on the individual poster, not on the BBF as a whole.

I meant to write something like the above for a long-term, this isn't a spontaneous reaction to this specific "censorship".

I am quite in agreement. Many of the discussions in this part of the forums are of significance to many people, things many care deeply about. It is bound to get heated at times because people can be passionate about their beliefs.

If only we could run this forum like the U.S. Senate verses the Mexican Congress, i.e., in the Mexican Congress they break into fistfights whereas in the U.S. Senate they call each other ignorant assholes, but respectfully submitted.

I support Richard's right to be beligerent and arrogant and controversial, even when his wrath is pointed at me. After all, it is not what is said but how we elect to allow ourselves to respond that is the key issue.

Respectfully submitted.

[mike777]

"Remember that US standards for what is inacceptably vulgar are so far away from most European countries' standards that you could easily spend a whole night in a British or German pub entertaining people by making fun of US TV censorship etc.)"

It will be interesting to see if the overseas standards of vulgarity grow more conservative as the increasing Muslim population gains influence in politics.

Will we see signs of this first in France or Britain or Germany?

I note in the local paper today they are discussing Muslim cab drivers at USA airports the right to refuse passengers carrying alcohol.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The latest news appears to be here, at the moment:

Washington Times

Thanks for the post. I read the Times article but am still confused to a degree over the incident. According to the article, the suspicious actions included:

" changing seats, stating anti-war, anti U.S.-Iraq involvement, negative comments concerning the president of the United States." The report noted that "two of the passengers requesting seat-belt extensions when their body size did not appear to warrant their use."

Huh???? Making anti-U.S.-Iraq involvement statements? Negative comments concerning President Bush?

The article also said the the investigation found the action justified....what the F*&%!!!. If this isn't racial profiling, I will kiss your shiny ....

Quote

....the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.....

[mike777]

Ok the facts are in dispute. Here are some more "facts" from the newspaper.
1) Allahu Akbar was the opening act before boarding. The same last words heard from United 93. Nothing uncommon so far.
2) After boarding, they did not take their assigned seats, they took the exact configuration of the 9/11 execution team.
3) 3 seat extenders were asked for, rolled up and placed under the seats.
4) one arabic-speaking passenger told flight attendant of angry denunciations of Americans and foreign policy.
5) Another passenger reported one of the imams stated he would do whatever measures necessary to obey all the tenants set out in the Koran.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Dec 6 2006, 08:57 PM, said:

Ok the facts are in dispute. Here are some more "facts" from the newspaper.
1) Allahu Akbar was the opening act before boarding. The same last words heard from United 93. Nothing uncommon so far.
2) After boarding, they did not take their assigned seats, they took the exact configuration of the 9/11 exucution team.
3) 3 seat extenders were asked for, rolled up and placed under the seats.
4) one arabic-speaking passenger told flight attendant of angry denunciations of Americans and foreign policy.
5)  Another passenger reported one of the imams stated he would do whatever measures necessary to obey all the tenants set out in the Koran.

My point is this: if the threat was so great, what were they doing on the plane?
Shouldn't they have been stopped before boarding?

This whole incident is certainly troubling...was it a real threat...was it staged....was it all innocent....whatever it was, it worked in reinforcing the fear of terror.

[Codo]

mike777, on Dec 7 2006, 10:57 AM, said:

Ok the facts are in dispute. Here are some more "facts" from the newspaper.
1) Allahu Akbar was the opening act before boarding. The same last words heard from United 93. Nothing uncommon so far.
2) After boarding, they did not take their assigned seats, they took the exact configuration of the 9/11 execution team.
3) 3 seat extenders were asked for, rolled up and placed under the seats.
4) one arabic-speaking passenger told flight attendant of angry denunciations of Americans and foreign policy.
5) Another passenger reported one of the imams stated he would do whatever measures necessary to obey all the tenants set out in the Koran.

1. I don`t talk arabic, but as far as I know, Allahu Akbar says: God is greater.
These words had been said on flight United 93? These words had been used a million times and are surely no sign of a terrorist attack.

2. As others pointed out, they boarded quite early, so they had the possibility to asssing the seats in any way the want. But they did not. Why? If they had been on this flight for a terrorist attack, why didn´t they board ealry to get the "right" seats?

3. There had been six terrorist on all four planes taking always the same seats? Anybody knows this and this is a clear sign for a terroist attack?

4. You ask for seat extenders to kill people?

5. There are many passengers each day, who hates the overboarding security checks and there are surely black white yellow green or red people any given day, who will be angry.

6. An Iman will do anything, so that he can obey the Koran? Wow, great news.

Even if these facts are facts, what do they proof? That you live in fear and that the fear is much bigger then the real danger.

[Codo]

mike777, on Dec 7 2006, 10:11 AM, said:

"Remember that US standards for what is inacceptably vulgar are so far away from most European countries' standards that you could easily spend a whole night in a British or German pub entertaining people by making fun of US TV censorship etc.)"

It will be interesting to see if the overseas standards of vulgarity grow more conservative as the increasing Muslim population gains influence in politics.

Will we see signs of this first in France or Britain or Germany?

I note in the local paper today they are discussing Muslim cab drivers at USA airports the right to refuse passengers carrying alcohol.

Good question, easy answer:

America will be the first western country to reach the muslim standards of vulgarity.
After all, these are not too far away from the standards in the midwest you have nowadays: No Joking about the church, respect Man, do what your leader tells you, no sex and drugs and Rock´n Roll, no sex before the marriage, no abortion, there is just one truth- mine, zero tolerance to other cultures, knowing that we are gods loved country...

Brothers in spirit.....but who knows, maybe this is the future and I just need to be enlighted?

Oh I love these prejudices

[mike777]

1) I said the words were common did you not read what I wrote and yes they were the last words heard on Flight 93.
2) Your point 2 makes no sense. The seats are assigned and they are not sitting in the assigned seats. What you wrote makes no sense.
3) They were speaking in Arabic not about the preboarding checks, read what I wrote.
4) Of course seat extenders can kill people or be used as a weapon. Have some common sense.
5) Yes the passengers were afraid and called the flight att. and the pilot kicked them off not the passengers. There were a lot of checks here, assuming these are the correct facts and many were scared or worried enough.
6) As I said in my other post with enough law suits the airlines can go back into bankruptcy, they are tettering already.

Have some common sense assuming these facts are correct. As I said they are in dispute.

As for you second comments about the midwest of the USA they are just nonsense.

[Al_U_Card]

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away.....there lived a people who cherished liberty and equality and no matter how elements of that society perverted and diverted these goals for their own ends, the people fought and strived to maintain a government for the people, by the people and of the people.

Evolution is about survival but surviving does not guarantee that those that survive will evolve. The hypocrisy and the delinquence that characterises modern society is a sad commentary on the plight of mankind. Per ardua ad astra......some day perhaps.

[Codo]

mike777, on Dec 7 2006, 10:12 PM, said:

1) I said the words were common did you not read what I wrote and yes they were the last words heard on Flight 93.
2) Your point 2 makes no sense. The seats are assigned and they are not sitting in the assigned seats. What you wrote makes no sense.
3) They were speaking in Arabic not about the preboarding checks, read what I wrote.
4) Of course seat extenders can kill people or be used as a weapon. Have some common sense.
5) Yes the passengers were afraid and called the flight att. and the pilot kicked them off not the passengers. There were a lot of checks here, assuming these are the correct facts and many were scared or worried enough.
6) As I said in my other post with enough law suits the airlines can go back into bankruptcy, they are tettering already.

Have some common sense assuming these facts are correct. As I said they are in dispute.

As for you second comments about the midwest of the USA they are just nonsense.

Hi Mike,

it is quite funny, that you want me to use common sense. After all I always write, that sense is never common.

I believe, that there are common truths like gravity, the ten requirements and others, but what you believe what common sense is, is surely not mine.

And it is quite bad luck, that you see no sense in the questions nr. 2 and 3. There are differences between questions and statements...
Of course I can put them in other words, but you would still have just your "common sense", so it would not change a bit.

Of course you can use seat extenders to kill people. Same could be said about your belt or my hands. There is no way that you can stop this, besides giving all passengers handcuffs and fix them at their seat. Or do you think that it will be sufficent to do this just to young muslim man?

Your newspaper tried to increase the fears you already have. They posted some statements to deliver a picture where you could say: Yes, these had been terrorists, the war is not yet over, we still have to be very careful about young male muslims. But even if their facts had been right, they had prove nothing.

And about the nonsense: I think, that you have at least a quite big minority in the middle of gods own country who believes in all or most of the things I listed.
I must admit, that my personal knowledge is nearly 20 years old, so maybe it changed, but If I watch the news, I doubt it.
But why shouldn´t they believe in these things, all points (besides zero tolerance) are reasonable viewpoints, even if I don´t share this views.
So, what is vulgarity is not too different to what is vulgarity to a fundamental muslim.
Of course, there are other points, where the viewpoints differ quite well, female rights, education etc, but there are more things in common then with my personal believes.

So I still believe, that it is your country, who has the biggest danger to change the laws according to religious insanity.

[bearmum]

I ONLY have one question (as I am not a student of the Muslim religion)

Is it allowed to pray SILENTLY at required times if you are in a place and time where praying aloud MIGHT concievably create suspicion as to your motivation for doing so?? (as in an airport JUST before you board a flight with other Muslims -- even if you don't know them)
As far as I know prayers in MOST other religions can be silent as SURELY prayers are between the person and their "God" whatever his/her name??