The all new ONE and ONLY Iraq threadThread originally posted by Best FirstPosted by Best First on 04-02-2003 at 01:59 AM:
As the previous topic was getting to big...
the below still stands quote: Posted by god on 04-02-2003 at 02:21 AM:
umm somebody have a site with acurate ground info?
they rescued a femele POW i saw on the news and they are condemming US soldiers because they shot a non stopping vehicule in self defense. umm the U.S. 4th Infantry Division arrived today, now we can go and do the hammer thingy  Posted by Spreemo on 04-02-2003 at 02:35 AM:
Thank goodness, the other thread was monstrous.
 I know the iraqis have got T55s and T72s, and the coalition have got Abrams and Challengers, but apart from names, I don't know any real facts about these tanks. Anyone knowledgeable on tanks or have a link to a spiffy tank site? Posted by god on 04-02-2003 at 02:50 AM:
shure
the M1A1/A2: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm challenger 2: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/challenger2.htm T55: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t54tank.htm T72: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t72tank.htm alot can be found at www.fas.org under conventional weapons section Posted by Best First on 04-02-2003 at 04:02 AM:
found this interesting;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,927860,00.html Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-02-2003 at 04:32 AM:
seems rather innacurate- latest I heard (today) was that formal plans for an Iraqi ruled govt. had been drawn up?
Posted by Best First on 04-02-2003 at 04:44 AM:
link?
Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-02-2003 at 05:03 AM:
no link- it was on sky snooze today? could be they got the wrong end of the stick but it was just what id heard.
gimme a tick and ill see if they have anything on it on their website... Posted by impactor returns on 04-02-2003 at 05:10 AM:
Im still finding BBC news to be the most un-bised of reporting.
Everything else comes with spin and such. I heard today they had droped 3000 bombs in the last 72 hours. out of a total 8000. silly numbers. What i really want to know is. A: whats going on in West Iraq. and B: How are we fairing on the front line as we start to attack saddam harder forces? and out of interest, would anyone like to predict how long the 'main' bulk of fighting wil last? i say 5 more weeks. Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-02-2003 at 05:13 AM:
closest i could find is this:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70146-12237325,00.html but its nearly 2 weeks out of date so it has nothing on anything said today. humbug! im sure the BBC will cover it in their lunchtime snooze specials? Thatll buy me some time to hunt for the link... ...lousy sky news... dont update their stupid website... {grumbles} EDIT- Has anyone else thought of this? Our reporters made a tradeoff- they would allow their reports to be vetted and controlled by allied forces in return for being on the frontlines... yet all being on the front lines seems to have bought us is the same 30 second piece of footage of tanks rumbling up and down roads and some completely indecipherable infra red pictures of baghdad at night!!! id rather have free reporting myself  as to the BBC, theyre not doing bad as regards coverage- Channel 4 (unfortunately) seems to be trying to report the War as if the Allies are on the brink of being beaten but I still think Sky News are doing the best in terms of impartiality and quality of reporting (although they too have been suffering from these 'ground breaking' images of tanks going along the same stretch of highway time and time again... yeesh...) Posted by god on 04-02-2003 at 06:21 AM:
by my estimated tactical analysis they will deploy troops north and west of bagdad, seround it and starve them out. they take on teh rest of irak first then go back to the capital, if needed they will declare bagdad a zero political power city and establish a new capital in basra or another southern city.
troops will take 2 weeks to take positions so i guess 4 weeks is a good estimate till end of major fighting, after that you need to burn out all militant groups using fuel air, napalm or clusterbombs. Posted by impactor returns on 04-02-2003 at 06:33 AM:
Nice to hear they rescued Jessica Lynch.
U have to be mentally brave to go in and do mission like that. Posted by Nebbie on 04-02-2003 at 07:50 AM:
quote:I wish we got BBC over here. I think we're supposed to get it on our cable plan, but I haven't been able to find it yet. Anyway, the news services over here bite. You have a choice between CNN (biased), Fox News (extremely biased, they have the O'Reilly show for Pete's sake), and MSNBC (not quite as biased as the others, I think, but still biased). MSNBC is the one I watch most of the time, before I got sick of the propoganda and stopped watching the news at all. P.S. Don't watch the O'Reilly show. I did one time and nearly broke the TV with my hairbrush when I threw it at him. Posted by god on 04-02-2003 at 01:16 PM:
according to cnn and BBC world, Irak's defenses are being crushed, some divisions were wiped out, i hope it's true
Posted by Blacksword on 04-02-2003 at 03:41 PM:
The CBC is pretty good for fairly unbiased coverage. Though you won't get quite as much up to the minute info. We tie into the BBC every now and then (mostly on CBC Newsworld) but you get a fair ammount of in depth analysis. I only watch CNN under normal condidtions for laughs and in terms fo the present for the latest, if rather biased info on the war.
EDIT: here's a cheery piece of news I just found [/sarcasm] http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/02/iraq_vandals030402 Some people are just idiots in every sense of the word. Posted by Best First on 04-02-2003 at 04:07 PM:
quote:i think its fair to say: c***s. Posted by impactor returns on 04-02-2003 at 04:51 PM:
the stupidist thing about the grafiti was the 'nazi' symbol they sprayed on the monument.
THey got it the wrong way round, which actually means 'life' as apposed to death in the way the Nazis orignally desinged it to be from the orginal 'life' symbol the greeks used. Dumb kents Posted by Blacksword on 04-02-2003 at 05:23 PM:
Dumbass is a dumbass is a dumbass in apparently more ways than two or three.
Though it may technically mean life in that form Impy I doubt the average person knows that. TO them a swastika in any form = Nazi. Unfortuately the facts don't matter much in such case so much as people's associations. Posted by Nightbeat on 04-02-2003 at 10:00 PM:
Meanwhile, back on the home front, Vermont gets into the news the only way it knows how.
How, you ask? By doing what they do best. Namely, being scum. Apparently in the state capitol, a group of high school kids threw verbal insults and some trash and possibly rocks at a member of the National Guard who made the mistake of being in uniform while off duty. The Guard member didn't want to press charges, and only reported the incident to her superiors. The head of the Guard leaked the story to the press, while withholding the Guard member's name. Now, without the Guardsperson coming forward, this comes down to a case of which side do you believe. But it probably happened. We've got a military academy up here as well, Norwich, and the cadets get treated like dirt. I just can't understand why people do these things. It's not the soldier's fault we're at war. It's not the cadets fault. It's the fault of the diplomats and politicians. The "Letters to the Editor" page of the local paper is full of letters about this incident(mainly wanting to know why kids are being taught that it's okay to do this, and why should our Guardspeople be ashamed to wear their uniforms in public), and I agree with them. It makes me sick that this state is like this. Of course, I hate Vermont for all other kinds of reasons, but this is just pathetic. I'm sick of this state. I'm sick of living in a state where they teach kids that people who wear the uniform of their country's military should be attacked. It's just wrong. Posted by Spreemo on 04-02-2003 at 10:08 PM:
That symbol has been demonized forever, irrevocably associated with Nazis and Hitler...
Speaking of dictators, the other big one from WWII, Stalin. It seems to me that Saddam identifies with him on some level, do you guys agree with that? I mean, Sad's got the moustache,  but also before Gulf War2 broke out, he compared a forthcoming fight in Baghdad to the battle for Stalingrad.  We wanna hope it doesn't go like that for the coalition.(Also, thanks for those heavenly links, God.) Posted by Blacksword on 04-02-2003 at 10:49 PM:
Well for a long time he was considered the Stalin of the Middle East. Like Stalin he's massively paranoid, has carried out bloody purgesof his own people and has secret police everywhere such that the people are afraid to sneeze the wrong way. Anyone recall the nasty reputation of the NKVD (I think that's the right acronym) the predecessor to the KGB. He's followed Uncle Joe's policies to letter but to a degree that was impossible in the Soviet Union in the first half of the century. And this is a man the US and a number of Western countries had a long standing alliance of convieneince with. Cause Iran was such a threat back in the eighties... Pity the noble sentiments of today weren't around in 1988 and 1989 when the Kurds died by the thousands and he only got the rest of the world's attention when he attacked Kuwait. If Kuwait hadn't had so much oil and if Saddam hadn't had designs on Saudi Arabia no one would have cared.
That's one thing that makes me so cynical about this whole affair. The West has made this whole situation, out of it's greed for oil and need to meddle in the region. Saddam came to power in 1979 and the US aided him to get him to give up his ties with the Soviets, since with the Shah gone they lost their major ally in the region (and he was such a nice guy too ). The US helped the Ba'ath (sp?) party come to power in the late sixties back when Saddam was just an enforcer. The British created this mish mash of a state back after WW1 just like they made other joke (no slight on the people, rather I mock the 'statesmen' who thought they could construct countries out of groups who despised each other) nations like Yugoslavia that were doomed to massive instability and bloodshed. The Middle East needed to be kept divided and weak so the Western Nations could take their oil and dominate the region. The Kurds have been screwed out of homeland for over eighty years and used as pawns by the British, Americans and anyone else who wanted to have expendible troops in the region. Iraq was kept under a brutal 'constitutional monarchy' until 1958 that was the mouthpiece of British interests in the region. There is a reason why people in teh region hate Westerners and why a numbver of people still follow Saddam and are willing to die for him. White English speaking troops in their country harkens back to the bad old days. We created our own problem. Anti-Western terrorism is the West's fault and if we knew enough to stay the hell out of the Middle East there might be some progress towards it ending. Little rant there.Posted by Spreemo on 04-03-2003 at 12:07 AM:
So there is something in the Stalin thing.
 yeah, and all that meddling in the Middle-East has created a powderkeg. The trouble with this war is that in the beginning, how the coalition powers went about getting it started didn't seem entirely honest, it seemed the wrangling with the UN was just bluff - they wanted war all along. Anyone agree with me when I say that's how it looked? Seems that the coalition created greater opposition in the form of anti-war protests, by doing it that way. They mishandled the issue. Don't get me wrong, I think Saddam is an appalling man. If you look at his record, there seems to be plenty reasons to do away with him. Why didn't the coalition just build a case for getting rid of Saddam by gathering all the intelligence on his continued oppression in Iraq, starting with the biggie: the gassing of the thousands of Kurds... I'd say that's enough to warrant action against him. Or is that naive of me? Another thing, I don't know if it's been said on the other war thread, but what's this about France having big contracts in Iraq? If that's true, do you think it was a factor in their opposition to the war? Posted by Blacksword on 04-03-2003 at 12:23 AM:
Well it can hardly not be a factor, but he fact that 80% of the French population is against the war is the biggest factor. The frech governmnet unlike Britain's is actaully obeying the will of its citizens though it perhaps has other reasons to. It's the same stroy in Germany. Not going to war is the only election promise Schroder hasn't broken and given the huge sweel of anti-war sentiment in Germany it would be political suicide to try and go to war agaisnt eh people's wishes. Heck this war has pretty much turned a no brainer Blair voctory into a certain defeat. What chance would the already shakey Schoder government have?
Posted by shaxper on 04-03-2003 at 12:29 AM:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/02/sprj.irq.wmd.hunt/index.html
But I thought we KNEW where they were developing and storing their WOMD. Collin Powell did the whole presentation. We're this far in Iraq, have captured numerous cities and bases of operation, and we STILL can't prove they have WOMD? Let's use logic here. This would mean either: 1. Hussain knew exactly where the US troops would advance and felt it more important to hide his WOMD then use them in a desperate losing battle. 2. We have no idea where and if there are WOMD and our reasons for going to war were bull. 3. We haven't advanced half as far as we've said and Iraqi television is correct in saying we've exaggerated our victories (after all, most of OUR press has been sent home). You guys decide. 2. Posted by Prowl Pants on 04-03-2003 at 12:49 AM:
My cousin (Major Thomas Adissi, USMC) shipped out for Kuwait Monday. I've purposely kept out of this thread because I'm worried sick for him. Could you all keep him in your thoughts for me?
Posted by Computron on 04-03-2003 at 12:52 AM:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/894669.asp?0cv=CA01
This should pave the way for women to serve in front line infantry roles soon. Posted by Best First on 04-03-2003 at 02:39 AM:
quote:Of course. One of my best friends from School, who is a Captain in the Royal Medical Core, has been out there from the start, so i know exactly how you feel. That said it doesnt alter my feelings as regards the politics of the situation. My bigest concen is that this will prove to be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of western meddling in the middle east. Posted by MaximusFan on 04-03-2003 at 03:29 AM:
A combination of 1 and 2. I think Saddam still has biological/chemical weapons, but the US has no idea where they are and has little to no proof of their existence.
Posted by Nebbie on 04-03-2003 at 04:24 AM:
quote:Will do. Which leads me to another thought. What is your town doing to support the troops? The main thing our tv stations are endorsing is Operation Phone Home (corny name, I know), which sends calling cards to the troops so they can call home to their families. I haven't donated yet, but mainly cause I'm between jobs and need about every penny I have left. But I will when I can. Posted by shaxper on 04-03-2003 at 08:30 AM:
Here's to hoping as many people as possible (on both sides) make it home safe.
Support your troops, just not the guy sending them off to war who's father paid to get him out of the Vietnam draft. Posted by impactor returns on 04-03-2003 at 10:20 AM:
My fave today is the Iraq military minster declared that there are NO collition forces within 100 miles of Baghdad...
Tell that to the Baghdaddys who are looking at the pretty troops in the Baghdad Airport. Posted by Best First on 04-03-2003 at 10:35 AM:
quote:What you fail to understand Shax, is that these people are special. They are entitled to things that we are not, and it is imperative for the goodness of the world that things remain that way. ... what do you mean, "why?" Posted by Getaway on 04-03-2003 at 03:20 PM:
According to several reports I've seen on Reuters, Channel 4 and Channel 5 there are growing splits in the UK/US relationship, which is very worrying, Bliar is totally against the idea the Americans have come up with for a post war government of Iraq and apparantly thinks many members of American leadership are unwilling to support a peace plan for the Israeli/Palestine problem. The claim by certain American hawks that we will go after Syria and Iran had also been critisized by Blair who would rather we continue to foster the growing increse in democracy in Iran that is already happening. The Military think the americans are unprofessional and are harming the Hearts and minds efforts made by our own soldiers and several incidences of friendly fire, shooting of civillians and no attempt at peacekeeping.
What do you think will happen when the conflict ends, if we disagree over what happens then, will we be more or less likely to cooperate in the future if both sides feel the other has misled them? Watch Question Time tonight Michael Moore is one of the panelists Posted by Blacksword on 04-03-2003 at 05:51 PM:
Pandora's box is open folks. There are way too many borderline psychos in the Bush cabinet and I can see Powell's camp losing. Good to see Blair finally showing some principle. I hope he's finally realized how freaking dangerous a lot of people in teh US governmnet are and teh dangers of unlateralism. Trouble is that teh US troops are tehre and more are coming. We canonly hope they'll stop with Iraq and let the UN handle most of the politics or this turns into a full scale West verses Middle East war that will last a very long time. But this honestly bring up teh question, if teh US decides to go its own way who can stop them? Don't see much of eth current president's father's vision of a family of nations, well maybe a severely estranged one.
Posted by Nosecone on 04-03-2003 at 06:16 PM:
quote:Damm missed it, is it repeated at all?? Posted by Papa Snarl on 04-03-2003 at 06:28 PM:
There was 'a' moore, but it wasn't the bowling for columbine director.
Posted by the uiltmate prime fan on 04-03-2003 at 06:34 PM:
quote:you got it man. just hope for the best. Posted by Getaway on 04-03-2003 at 06:54 PM:
Must own up, I read Michael Moore in the paper and thought it was the famous one, and it just turned up to be a pretty dull Liberal Democrat MP, sorry for misleading anyone there.
Posted by Nightbeat on 04-04-2003 at 12:12 AM:
Definately time to move to England.
Why, you ask? Julie's there, of course. Now then, anybody know how long a 1972 Buick Riviera'll take to clear customs quarrentine? Posted by Blacksword on 04-04-2003 at 07:45 AM:
Good luck driving that thing anywhere on UK roads, especially the smaller country lanes or anywhere in city centres. And given how much gas a thing like that guzzles I hope you'll enjoy some of the highest gas prices in the world. But my guess is that they'll just dump the old dinosaur in the sea rather than let it sully English soil. All a non-Brit's persppective of course.
Posted by impactor returns on 04-04-2003 at 08:05 AM:
thats why we use 'turbos' small engine, faster accelration, less gas/fuel used.
well i do :P Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 04-04-2003 at 04:26 PM:
Apologies if this is off-topic, but i didn't want to start a new one and have it closed for touching on issues relating to Iraq.
One point that has been put across on numerous occassion since September 11th 2001 is that the new danger to world peace and security will come, not from a single large empire, but numerous rogue states. I think this view is partially true, but misses out on some crucial points. Rogue states certainly are a danger, as they exist outside of the usual international safeguards, ignoring diplomacy and pursuing an unpredicatble agenda. However, a far more pressing danger is the gradual transformation of the capitalist/globalist ideology into a self-prpetuating system that serves only to increase the gap between the rich and the poor. Modern multi-national corporations have gained such vast welath that they have a degree of influence equalling states. They own and produce nothing other than brands, copyrights and capital, all production is carried out by seperate contractors. But through this welath they can dramtically influence the growth of a nations economy, and effectively buy political support all over the world. In the US many large corporations donate equally large sums to both parties, this is not free sepach, but legalised bribery. In the third world their economic powers are so massive that they can force countires into a bidding was to see who can sell their citizens at the lowest prices. factories producing goods for multi-nationals in the third world exist in specially designated zones in which local labour and tax laws do not apply. Most of these companies, thanks to a system designed to encourage overseas investment, pay no taxes for five years. When this five years is up, they shut down and reopen elsewher in order to get the brakes all over again. Attempts to prevent this by a country result in a shift to an entirely different country. In the Liang Shi handbag factory in China, which produces goods for sale in Wal-Mart, workers are payed US$0.13-0.23 an hour (they need US$0.87 to subsist) for ten hours shifts 6-7 days a week. The Wellco factory in China, producing Nike shoes workers are paid $0.16 for 11 or 12 hours shifts. (These statistics come from 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein, Flamingo 2001). The companies that buy the products do not own the factories, they ahve no ties to the workers. When they can find a better deal they move on. The truly frightening thing is that these corporations have grown to the extent that they lack true human direction. They have no real desires, they are as faceless as any beauracracy. They have become self-sustaining systems for generating capital and expanding, at all costs. Globalisation, as envisioned by the World Trade organisation, and others is a sham which really means 'multi-nationals selling to whomever they wnat at the price they choose.' Copyright laws at economic incentives allows these corporations to actually censor opponents. Does everyone recall the story of the protester thrown out of a privately owned mall for wearing an anti-war T-shirt? The truly terrible thing is that the human race, as a whole, produces enough resources for everyone to live comfortably, but an inefficient distribution network, which exists only to perpetuate itself prevents that. I'm not saying the capitalism is bad, but that it must be controlled, because uncontrolled capitalism seeks only to produce capital not to serve human needs. It is a system, it has no intelligence and must be guided, yet modern political thinking says it must be left unrestricted, this is wrong-headed and dangerous. The true threat to the world, is not military force, or even uncontrollable terrorism, but uncontrolled organisations that control human behaviour without any form of ideology, which leads act without intent to prevent us questionioning our fundamental assumptions. All of this is submitted strictly IMHO in the hope of generating some discussion. Sorry if it's a bit rambling but it has grown somewhat organically as I have been writing it and it ws my first attempt to articulate my feelings on the subject. Posted by god on 04-05-2003 at 04:08 AM:
no they don't
there are not enough resources to grant the entire world the same standard, unless you are willing to depart with 87% of your ownings/wealth. calculated it is possible to give aprox 3.5-4 billion people a decent western average lifestyle without using all resources on the planet in 50 years and with mass reuse of materials. so get rid of 2.5 billion people. That and the fact that nobody wants to have the same as their neighbour. on the big companies you are right, they produce the cheapest way possible, moving to china, taiwan and other nations where labor is cheap and regulations bendy. BUT... they will in time kill themselves as the offset is here and not there, if you relocate more and more to poor countrys the buying capacity here will diminish andthey will have to find even cheaper solutions (it's a vicious circle). True that the poor countries will get ritcher, but they are still to dependant on the Western economie so if the west falls, they fall too. People always look at the price first, a mistake that gonna cost us. Posted by god on 04-05-2003 at 04:10 AM:
on the brighter news: somebody is loosing a capital
, lets hope he doesn't use any chemical stuff on the cityPosted by Sheba on 04-07-2003 at 07:36 PM:
quote: What the hell is this bullcrap about focusing on MERELY the statistical "gap" between the rich and the poor, WITHOUT taking into account ACTUAL MONEY?! The gap BY ITSELF = NOT IMPORTANT. What IS important is any gains in income "the poor" may be receiving, even as this much-maligned "gap" is trumpeted as growing by leaps and bounds. Somehow this focusing on the "gap" makes it possible to IGNORE or gloss over any real gains the poor have made. And that's just plain disingenuous. The rich aren't rich because the poor are poor! And the poor aren't poor because the rich are rich! It's not a zero sum game! "Bringing down" the wealthy actually hurts the poor more than it helps them. quote: Actually, it should be called "protection money"--it's money the companies pay to not be hassled too much with red tape, excessive taxation, and whatnot. If governments STOPPED picking on Corporations (unless a criminal act is apparent, in which case they SHOULD be picking on them, yesssss), this "protection money" would not be necessary. quote:And whose fault is that? It's because of regulations in the other countries, plus regulations in North America that wind up doing that. While regulation is indeed good to prevent abuses, when it goes too far it causes crap like that to happen. You can't force every country to have regulations on businesses same as you. It's a nice idea, but probably won't happen until we get a one world government. Which I HOPE will NOT happen in my lifetime. quote: You gotta remember, China is still communist. You know, the defenders of the 'little guy' and such forth? They're the ones that are allowing this. In fact they're condoning it, plus adding to the problem with their Chinese Gulag (Laogai) labor, which is even worse because the prisoners basically work for FREE. Communists that are for exploitation, what a freaking surprise. quote: I don't know if you can prove what you're saying about the "intents" of corporations, whether you're getting this stuff off the net (lord knows the reliability of some of the sources that spew/spin some of this stuff) or if actual reputable sources are evidence. They can only censor those who violate copyrights, legally. quote: That's spin. The REAL reason he was thrown out was he was being an @$$ and confronting people and arguing with them. He was a nuisance and causing an unnecessary disturbance on PRIVATE property. quote:Do you suggest forced distribution and central government planning of the economy? Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 04-08-2003 at 02:35 PM:
Woo-Hoo! Sheba had a go at my post, I finally feel like a real member of Transfans, it's like some kind of initiation ritual. Great stuff.
And on to the response. quote:You're absolutely right, in so far as this argument goes. It's not a zero sum game in the absolute sense, in that its possible for everyone to benefit in the long run. However, for the most part policies that benefit the rich cause the poor to suffer. Lower minimum wage, worse working conditions, less corporate tax (leading to reduced social security spending) all benfit the rich at the expense of the poor. Note my use of the word ONLY, this is important. If something serves ONLY to increase the gap between the rich and the poor, then the poor must suffer and the rich benefit, simple. While a gap between rich and poor is certainly not bad per se, it certainly isn't good, are you in favour of an increase? An increased gap means that the poor are getting a smaller and smaller share of the pie, and unless the pie is getting bigger at a faster rate than the gap the poor lose out (welcome to mixed metaphor hell ).quote:For "picking on" read expecting a social contribution. Remember that corporations get to make money because governments exist to enforce laws (try to make money in a state of anarchy). But the actual amount they should pay is largely a matter of personal opinion, I'm willing to agree to disagree. quote:Call me crazy but I believe workers are entitled to be paid enough money to live on and should feel safe at work without fear of harassment or ill health. These corporatiosn don't just abandon rich, industrial nations, they force third world countries to engage in a bidding war with each other to see who can reduce the rights of workers (and therefore straight monetary costs) for their benefit. quote:I don't support Communist China, or any government that allows coporations to exploit there citizens (though I have some limited sympathy for those that have little choice). The fact that China allows it doesn't make it acceptable. Surely we 'enlightened' nations should be setting an example and our corporations should be condemning, not exploiting, their porr labour laws. quote:Actually the stuff that isn't IMHO comes largely from two excellent books: 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein and 'Fast Food Nation' by Eric Schlosser. Not everything i read comes off a screen .quote:Problem is these laws can be interpreted quite broadly. One man had has Walmart protest site shut down because be 'illegally' used the Walmart logo. Copyright should not exclude comment. quote:It's a thought. Seriously, while I am certainly no Communist (not even a Marxist) I do think Marx has more to say in the twenty first century than he ever did in the nineteenth. To be honest I don't have a nice easy solution mapped out, sorry, I'll let you know when I do. But I do think that the system as it stands will take us nowhere, as I outlined above. Well that was fun. One thing you can say for Sheba is that she certainly forces you to think. Edit: screwed up a quote, and then screwed up the edit, hence the post below, sorry. Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 04-08-2003 at 02:37 PM:
Sorry screwed up, this shouldn't be here.
Posted by Computron on 04-08-2003 at 03:16 PM:
quote: Posted by Best First on 04-08-2003 at 03:57 PM:
quote:self awareness is a wonderfull thing. Posted by Getaway on 04-08-2003 at 05:17 PM:
So what do peeps think about the American who will be runnign Iraq after the war, He's one of Rumsfelds mates a neo-conservative Zionist who supports Israel and has expressed admiration for their methods of fighting in the Middle East, he is also apparantly wanting to bring over hard line Christian preachers to convert the 'heathen' Arabs to the worship of Christ. On the positive side he is apparantly well experienced in the supply of humanitarian aid and quite likes the place from the last time he was there.
Overall I find it hard to imagine a worse possible choice as the governor of the place, because the average Muslim is going to be so happy with an Israel supporting man who wishes ti turn them from 'their' faith. Good one Bush. Posted by Redstreak on 04-08-2003 at 05:22 PM:
Great...more good news...
Someone end the pain already, like these guys are trying to do... http://www.votetoimpeach.org Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-08-2003 at 05:31 PM:
quote:...communism is not about the 'little guy'- communism (technically) is also categorically not about 'corporations' or capitalism: the two are idiological enemies. Although I agree it is the Chinese govts. fault as much as the corporations that their workers are as good as slaves- you cannot blame it on 'communism' and deny all responsibility when the corporations going along with it and funding it are based in your own country, IMO. Communism is about working for the self in subsistance, rather than working for someone else for a wage. Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 04-08-2003 at 07:16 PM:
quote:LMA-FRIKKEN-O Allow me to drop kick these suckers out the window. The chances of them actualy even getting within the planetary system of Impeaching Bush are about 76000000 to 1. Who do they think they're fooling? Frikken Kennedy had more grounds for impeachement then Bush. And to counter argue you argument beforehand, he started a War, but he had Congress's aproval. No problems there. He hasn't been in any scandals, which is more then I can say for Their Man Clinton. Geesh. These guys are pathetic losers. I think I'lll send this to Bill O'Reilly and see what he says. That'll be a hoot. Posted by Computron on 04-08-2003 at 07:18 PM:
quote: Posted by Redstreak on 04-08-2003 at 07:28 PM:
Well Fwiffo, if he's a pundit then he'll love it, if he's arch-conservative, he'll hate it...and let me ask you if you actually read anything beyond the main page? Like the list of grievances? And even if there's a minute chance to get rid of the warmonger from power, then by all means I, for one, am going to be part of it...
Posted by Nosecone on 04-08-2003 at 07:41 PM:
quote:Yes, but you'll have to excuse my ignorance, me being form the uk and all but umm, didn't Clinton actually win the election? Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 04-08-2003 at 10:22 PM:
quote:Why yes he did. But so did Bush. INTRESTING TRIVIA NOTE: Bush actualy won with a higher voter pecentage then Clinton did the first time he was elected (Due to nader garnering 20%) Posted by Computron on 04-08-2003 at 10:51 PM:
quote:I have a serious question. If Clinton never existed, would Republicans/Conservatives/Right-Wing people still attempt to debate issues? Without Clinton as their glorious Red Herring, what would they do? Would they, *gasp* actually have to address the argument at hand? Heaven forbid... Posted by Best First on 04-09-2003 at 03:09 AM:
quote:Don't worry - there would stil be 'The UN' and 'anti-americans'... Posted by Nosecone on 04-09-2003 at 07:40 AM:
quote:Only by frauding the voters in florida, using illigitimate votes from abroad, rigging the voteing slip to easily allow Democrats to vote for Lieberman Posted by god on 04-09-2003 at 09:46 AM:
it's justified according to the law, so it's just, no fraud, just pissed democrates who are mad they lost!
Posted by Computron on 04-09-2003 at 09:49 AM:
quote:How is it legal to disenfranchise thousands of black voters? Posted by Best First on 04-09-2003 at 10:02 AM:
anu suggestion that 'legal' and 'just' are automatically synonomous seems rather simplistic to me.
Posted by Blacksword on 04-09-2003 at 10:52 AM:
Anyone who confuses the law with justice is naive beyond reckoning. The law can do anything the legislators want it to. Have we forgotten that the final solution was legal at one point too. Laws are only as good as they are written and a lot or full of loop holes and abiguities. Also law is cold and unyeilding. It has to be otehrwise it can be manipulated. To many exceptions and it can warped by anyone with an agenda. Too unyeilding and it is useless in a number of unusual circumstances, and merciless to exceptional cases. The law my friend is an ass, as is anyone who belives anything that is legal is necessarily right.
Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-09-2003 at 01:40 PM:
[is extremely wound up]
how bloody stupid are the BBC? "incredible scenes in Baghdad..." What war were THEY watching up until now? Like they somehow expected this to end any other way? Sure we disagreed on how long it would take, but nobody ever disagreed baghdad WOULD fall- its hardly incredibe- its PREDICTABLE, nothing more has happened other than what everyone expected. When a city like that falls, youd have to be an idiot to leave statues and pictures of Saddam grinning at you from every angle to inspire resistance. Though I am glad the Iraqis seem to be pleased with it (that was a big grey area and that seems to have gone very well). The only problem is that I still dont see any illegal weapons... or even any military leaders to bring to trial... ...just another 'corrected' country...hmm... excuse my idle ramblings and BBC hatred Posted by Getaway on 04-09-2003 at 04:49 PM:
For all its problems the BBC has done better than some of the other News channels, Channel 4 and ITV have been pathetic, also although I personally have not particualrly liked the BBC's reporting, they have been critisized by some as being too anti-coalition and others as being Blairs poodle propaganda machine to get abused by both sides must mean they are doing something right.
Jay Garner.....anyone? Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-09-2003 at 04:57 PM:
i agree as regards ITV and C4- ITV (naturally) couldnt report their way out of a paper bag, and Channel 4 have been reporting the whole thing as if Washington is 2 days away from being invaded.
I just dont like the witless 'news for idiots' strategy which seems to pervade the BBC... {grumbles profusely} Posted by impactor returns on 04-09-2003 at 04:58 PM:
Sorry Karl but i think u missed the point.
The incerdible scenes were an opressed ppl finnaly seeing thier dictator on the way out. Not the fall of Baghdad. Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-09-2003 at 05:30 PM:
well i personally dont see anything that unprecedented or unforseen in what happened and is happening in Baghdad- the people were either going to back Saddam or rejoice that he'd gone, it was hardly something that came totally out of the blue.
the BBC are treating it like it is some startling new development, IMO. i just dont like the way the BBC handles things like this- no intelligent commentary or meaningful appraisals, just the usual buzzwords ... i wouldnt mind if they actually used a thesaurus or something, rather than the same old catchphrases... oh well, theres always question time. dont know what it is with the BBC, i cant stand their news broadcasting but they make very good commentary programs. Posted by impactor returns on 04-09-2003 at 07:35 PM:
Put the BBC against any other news team and they are the better of them all.
I dont agree with your statements, raghi omar has come under increasing preassure throughout this war for reporting it down the line and not pleaseing the war wathcing public. Of course everyone knew the outcome, but they are the 'news' they still have to report it. And this was has been a shock. FOr starters in 21 days a regime has fallen. we have seen the Iraq ppl freed from an oppresor. now that is quite incredible. and well worth getting excited about. As for WOMD, they have only been to 10% of this country so far, fighting a war, not looking much to find stuff. they dont exactly sign post these things along the road to baghdad. Personnaly i have found the BBC reporting to be the best of the lot, the most informitive in nearly all instances. and i was amazed when the US army turned up in Baghdad so soon, i think the whole world was. and the events today are being screened everywhere in the world because it is an amazing situtation for the ppl of Iraq. Everyone knew the US would win, sure its no great surprise. but so soon. and to actually see the change begin in Iraq? if its not interesting or amazing news i dont what is. And if u dont like channel u can always turn over and watch one of the other stations, id be interested in which one tho. Posted by Getaway on 04-09-2003 at 07:49 PM:
Channel 5, belive it or not there news is actually pretty good, much better than ITV who actually make 5's news program for them. Even the 5Facts section can work really welll such as the 5 facts about Jay Garner being an ultra-right wing monkey.
Posted by impactor returns on 04-09-2003 at 08:02 PM:
i should stop posting late at night, im normally drunk and sarcastic.
*watchs C5* Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-10-2003 at 04:01 AM:
quote:your answer to that and to my preferred news channel is Sky- who give a half-intelligent running commentary on whats happening and in-depth analyses at regular intervals, rather than the ol' beebs attitude which seems to be "oh no, stupid people might watch the news- we musn't use big words or have intelligent discussion or they wont understand!! lets use a bunch of clapped out cliches and some over-blown graphics to express the simplest possible commentary of what happened." The only reason I rate them above ITN is because ITN have utterly given up on even LOOKING professional. Their graphics suite must have been programmed by the lowest bidder -_- it looks like a brothel! or a bad 70's porn movie... quite simply I do not agree that the BBC news is the 'best in the world' and all the other terms which may have been accurate 15 years ago. You'll also find that the TV standards awards have recognised that- and have given Sky News the title of News Channel of the Year and have awarded Channel 4 the best reporting award for several years running. When i want good news reporting, I turn to sky- as most of the time I dont have access to Sky, I am forced to settle for the BBC for a running live update as I cannot download video feeds from the net and find text-based news sites information rather bland. quote:That's not what I meant- Day 1 of the war. Theory: Saddam has WoMD. Environment: Iraq is attacked by US forces. Observation: No WoMD are used. Hypothesis: Saddam will not use the weapons as he hopes he can appear the 'victim' and the US will call of the attack. Day 21 of the war: Theory: Saddam has WoMD. Environment: Iraq's major cities are taken, the command and control for the Iraqi armed forces are non existent. Observation: No WoMD are used. Hypothesis: 'the not using WoMD' hypothesis above hinged on the war ending in Saddam's favour through appearing innocent. That situation changed dramatically in about day 20 when it was obvious that the regime was about to collapse and the war would be lost. So, in order to defend himself, why has Saddam NOT used his WoMD when the time for playing the 'victim' has been surpassed by imminent conquest? Hypothesis 2a: he does not have any, Hypthesis 2b: he has only the materials but never had the chance to build any weapons. The country has now been (in any meaningful sense of the word, as 90% of it is desert) conquered and not a single chemical weapon was fired to defend it's ruler? That's what I want to know about WoMD- WHERE are they, and if none are found: did they ever exist? so to conclude "Down with the BBC!" Posted by Sir Auros on 04-10-2003 at 04:23 AM:
How do sane, intelligent people like yourselves put up with the sheer idiocy of the handful of clearly poorly-educated people opposing you? I mean, it's fun to make fun of them to a point, but doesn't anyone here just snap and go on a stupid-person killing spree?
Posted by impactor returns on 04-10-2003 at 07:39 AM:
Well i dont agree.
Raghi omar, lysse dochet are both from iraq and jordan respectivily and have given far more criticle reports then any other channel bar the very biest C4 reports. which in all favour do show alternate angles of the war. As for Saddam and his WOMD. A: did it ever occur that he never had a chance to use them? B: they have only looked at 10% of the country, and hardley looked hard as they have been/still fighting a war. Why not wait untill they are finnished with killing each other and our in proper controll untill u pass judjment? And if we are wrong, reinstate Saddam. As for Sky news winning 'best news channel' who the hell voted for it, the readers of 'sky' magazine? And i thought CNN won, or was it al jhazzer TV or North Korea today. i could have sworn they all won 'best news channel awards' last year. i must be wrong, the ppl of the US voted for sky, as did the arab nations and the asian nations...  secondly i watched some of SKy yesterday, and they were saying the scenes in Baghdad were pretty darn amazing too, echoing the reports from the BBC. so i dont see what the differece is. Posted by Best First on 04-10-2003 at 08:27 AM:
quote:sorry - but if ever a statement deserves its that.Posted by impactor returns on 04-10-2003 at 08:56 AM:
quote:sorry - i should have added [/sarcasm] after it. Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-10-2003 at 10:00 AM:
quote: Posted by Sheba on 04-10-2003 at 03:31 PM:
You guys that ACTUALLY believe that
a) Bush started this war so that Cheney's pals at Halliburton could get a contract b) The Florida election was rigged in favor of Bush and/or c) They have or are going to 'plant' WMD in Iraq so they say they found them you guys have one of two options. FLEE the country, or pick up a firearm and start armed revolution! Because if any of all that is true, that's a scary government and one that you CAN'T beat with your vote. If the Florida election was rigged, what's the point in voting?! That's how you know the people that are saying all that stuff are full of crap. They don't really believe all that stuff, it's just a fashion statement. -Phil Hendrie Posted by Nosecone on 04-10-2003 at 04:08 PM:
Sheba, I have a question for you - If Sadam has WOMD why hasn't he used them?
Do you actually think he is in his bunker going "better not use my WOMD, I might get in trouble" Actually I've been reading some stuff that makes me pleased, Russia have said they are going to defend their oil contracts in the region, China I believe are doing the same so all I can do is lol at Bush's attempt to try and get that oil Question though for others a) Do you think Bush is stupid enough to see how far China and Russia are willing to go for that oil - basically ripping up the contracts b) Do you think Bush is stupid enough to start attacking some more arab countries like Syria & Iran after this war is over c) Are America going to be able to stop the Kurds from setting their own state, the Kurds seemed willing to be able to go in without American permission earlier and Turkey are going mental over it  Sheba is going to give a decent answer[/old joke] Posted by impactor returns on 04-10-2003 at 04:10 PM:
When did I criticise the reporters- I don't recall doing it? I criticised the presentation of news and the written reports- which means the PRESENTERS and WRITERS, as oppose to live reports.
The reporters are the ppl who write and present the news from Iraq Oh, you mean aside from those 5-7 days when the US army were about 10 miles from Baghdad and were obviously going the whole hog? Or those 48 hours where the regime was obviously losing its grip on its armed forces? They have had those two at least as opportunities to fight back. using the same the logic then. so because they havent used them they havent got them then? we havent used nukes but u know we have them. That is nothing to do with the issue. This isnt about the Allies LOOKING for weapons, its the question "if he has them, why hasnt he used them to defend himself?" They might have been burried in the bombing, the ppl pulling the trigger killed the launch systems destroyed. there are many reasons. Personaly i dont think saddam is informed well enough. ass shown by Panoramma Extremely unhelpful and rather naive considering the killing is supposedly to safeguard OUR safety against the WoMD- why dont you keep your sarcastic views quiet until you have proof that you are right? Thats pretty much the same argument. I don't proport to be right on anything, I'm asking questions which I would really like answered and highlighting problems which I have not seen anybody address. If they are answered, wunderbar- but I dont see that they WILL Be answered unless people actually ASK them to begin with. well i gave u an answer above. and i think there are many reasons as to why Saddam hasnt used em. he still might. and they probably havent found them as he has had 6 years to hide them in the other 90% of the country we havent visted. Baghdad is like London, imagine if i hid 100 wheelie bins in london, think u could find em, if i hid them really well? not very easily. lil own in a whole desert. The awards were NATIONAL, i.e. Britain only. The awards were conducted by an INDEPENDANT body, the same on which awarded several BBC reporters for good live coverage? But then again that was probably voted for by the top bosses at the BBC... where was this voting? which magazine, web site, who voted, i never saw it, how many ppl voted. christ i see polls everyday for best record ever, or best car ever etc, which says national because its in a 'national magazine' it means sod all The difference is that the BBC give no more insight into a situation than using simple words to describe it, rather than Sky who will describe it, and then join a debate on it and then have a discussion as to its significance- whilst the BBC are on their third reading of 'incredible' and showing the same 2 minutes of video. Are you on the payroll of the BBC PR dept.? yeah im on the payrol of BBC *yawns* well BBC do discuss, they have like 3 defecne anylsts, a number of independent panalists, news reporters speaking to ppl from all different countrys to get different views on a situation. they have just had a BBC news show hosted by jhon dimblby on for 2 hours on BBC.wich was a very good debate. most evening you have 'hard talk' mainly speaking about the war at the moment. they consistently speak to senators in the US over the war. they have many different reviews disscussions, and seperate source reporters from around the world. just like sky. You dont like BBC, I do. I dont feel anything your saying about BBC cannot be said about SKY either. Posted by Sheba on 04-10-2003 at 05:20 PM:
quote:It has NOTHING to do with Saddam being a decent guy, or not wanting to get in trouble. Rather, it is far more likely that it had something to do with the fact that Special Ops were in Iraq for a full six months before the start of the war. Whatever they did, PREVENTED Saddam from using WMD. Not that he wasn't planning to use them; gas masks and chem suits found in Iraq bear witness to the intent. Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-10-2003 at 05:27 PM:
quote: Posted by Nosecone on 04-10-2003 at 05:29 PM:
quote:So he is unable to use WMD and we still invaded under the guise of him having WMD, rather illegal isn't that. Not to mention special ops are actually illegal, you can't send them into a country to perform the tasks unless you are officially at war. So basically you are saying that the American are a bunch of liars (they invaded knowing there were no WMD cause special ops had disabled them) and also blatently don't give a ***t about international law by the fact they are using illegal special ops I'm sure an impeachment could be started for doing that? Posted by impactor returns on 04-10-2003 at 06:09 PM:
The reporters are the ppl who write and present the news from IraqYes... and the people in the studio are the ones who write and present the actual program? That was the point. Actually they are called link men. the reports are written by (shock horror) reporters, like raghi amd lysce who i mentioned before. who have been very good. to the extent that some of our own troops didnt like thier 2 sided arguments the BBC was producing and have said they will not watch it as its not 'pro-war' enough. now if thats not a good balanced bit if viewing is i dont know what is. The difference being we are not in a 'do or die' situation where they are our last alternative. Like i said, before. quote: That is nothing to do with the issue. This isnt about the Allies LOOKING for weapons, its the question "if he has them, why hasnt he used them to defend himself?" see above. another reason is Saddam learnt somthing from 1990, thats how to manipulate the press. ie. he wasnt a religous man, but just before the 1990 confilct he walked into a mosque and preyd to allah. a lot of arabs instantly took his side. so i wouldnt be surprised if he didnt use them as it would just vindicate the US's reasons for war. I wouldnt believe everything you see on Flanorama... he's been well informed enough to avoid assassinations for the last 20-odd years and maintain a grip on power despite a huge base of people who would give a great deal to depose him. Not forgetting his and his governments avoiding the Allied forces and escaping? My point is. like we have seen throught out this war with the Mad Iraq minster, who lied about everything. he probably isnt given credible information. u think anyones gonna tell him they are losing? they would be executed. as for avoiding the US? a monkey can spot an army moving towards baghdad. better yet watch the BBC and find out whats going on Can we please depart from this question of 'iraqs a big place thats why we havent found his WoMD' that is entirely secondary to the question- ah ok, u ask questions 'i wont, but ill try and answer yours with my 'inferior BBC backed knowledge' the question is 'If he has them why hasnt he used them? If he didnt use them to defend his own power what was the good in having them?' That has nothing to do with the issue of the affore-mentioned weapons being hidden or not. I have tried to answer that a few times now. Ill bet my house that they will find them. and why didnt he use them? we shall never know. whay did he move his repbulican gaurd out into the open where US forces could take them apart, why not engage in heavy street fighting, like in other towns? god knows. theres loads of questions as to why he didnt do this or that with the resources he had available. Maybe the chemicle weps were for Chem ali to use who is now dead. there are loads of reasons. prehaps his men didnt want to and surrendered. maybe someone lost the key to the machine, maybe his ministers killed saddam because they thought it was just to much...list gos on... Funny it is broadcast on Channel 4 and the results shown on all major news channels once a year, as well as all the associated winners putting the info. up on their ads and banners. ah well that proves it. public opionin now backs this war, do u? the public belive saddam has checmicle weapons, do u? yeah im on the payrol of BBC *yawns* It's very rare I meet someone who's obviously willing to go and donate a kidney for the sake of the BBC. Need a nap? Are u dying because the BBC might be better then SKY news? is it painfull for you? here, have a kidney, im donating As I said before (if we can please try and advance the discussion on from issues instead of retreading them time and time again [like the hidden WoMD issue >_< ]} The BBC DO make good current affairs programmes- but ironically in my opinion their NEWS presentation sucks- Iraq is the latest and in some ways an exception (because it has on several occassions combinmed the News and programmes like Question Time into ONE show). Their NEWS reporting- programs which day-to-day qualify as NEWS, rather than programs which are separate entities such as Question Time, the Daily Politics etc. etc., is generally, i think, rotten. You dont like BBC, I do. I dont feel anything your saying about BBC cannot be said about SKY either. Posted by Sheba on 04-10-2003 at 07:51 PM:
quote:I didn't say that the Special Ops disabled any WOMD. What they probably did was disable parts of the Iraqi military so that they couldn't get to their WOMD. Don't forget, stuff was found. Some of it was ditched in the Euphrates River and now it's leaking. International Law? I don't remember electing a representative to make any of that... And now for something completely different [/Monty Python]: Liberals Only Like Looting in American Cities April 10, 2003 Opponents of the war with Iraq who, with thinly veiled bigotry said that Muslims just don't want freedom, are looking at the scenes of "surgical looting" in Baghdad as proof they were right. I knew this would happen, but I still find it annoying. They're saying, "See? See! They're nothing but a bunch of savages. They're burning their own neighborhood and expecting American taxpayers to rebuild it." This bull is already starting, and it's going to bomb royally on these people, just as every other tactic that they've tried has. You liberals think this looting is odd or exclusive to "those kinds" of people? When sports teams lose or win championships, people riot. Even in Vancouver and Toronto, they riot. Are the Canadians not ready for freedom? I call this "surgical looting" in Baghdad, because the areas being looted are primarily those areas belonging to the Ba'ath Party and Saddam's thugs. Why, the last time we saw looting like this was when the Clintons left the White House! Saddam looted the wealth of the Iraqi people, literally taking food out of their mouths to build his palaces and evil weapons, and now the people are taking back what's theirs. The UN looked the other way as Saddam plundered cash from the Oil for Food Program - and you wonder why the Iraqis are looting the UN's offices? If you're going to tell us that we have to understand the social injustices that cause looting and riots here, then you darn well better understand the causes of the looting by the Iraqis. Posted by Best First on 04-11-2003 at 04:01 AM:
quote:"By day she is the mild mannered Sheba, but when her evil liberal opponents threatened to form constructive opinons that would shatter her unsupportable world view she finds the nearest outdoor latrine and turns into THE AMAZING STARWMAN! With her daring powers of fallacy she places words in opponenets mouths that they would never say! Then with her fanatstic powers of arguing with the really stupid things she has attributed to people that they never actually said she smites them with a mighty "you just don't get what they are about", or a fearsome "Dude - thats wrong!" Greatest of all is her power to ignore what people have actually said and then just challenge them over the same point again even tho they have already addressed it so they just give up cos its really so very wearying. Tune in next week (or quite possibly in the next ten minutes) for more adventures of THE AMAZING STARWMAN!" Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-11-2003 at 07:06 AM:
Actually they are called link men.
I hope you are writing to the BBC and every other studio in the country to correct them on this? It seems they are not privvy to your superb general knowledge and unswervingly superior understanding of the world. the reports are written by (shock horror) reporters, like raghi amd lysce who i mentioned before. Yes. When is the marriage? The reports IN THE FIELD, you half-baked drip- are you honestly telling me that Lord High Rageh (you could try and spell his name right if you think that much of him) gets on a flight and heads back to BBC Television Centre to lecture the presenters on what to write? FIELD reports are written by FIELD reporters- STUDIO reports are written by STUDIO STAFF. Don't lecture me on this nonsense I've actually had some dealings with this industry so I have a minor concept of how it works. who have been very good. to the extent that some of our own troops didnt like thier 2 sided arguments the BBC was producing and have said they will not watch it as its not 'pro-war' enough. Can I ask to see this information? I don't question it's accuracy but I've not heard any criticisms of the BBC from the Armed Forces- though I have heard them from the General Public (who also reflect a great many of my views, shall I go through the phone book and suggest a few phone numbers for other people who need correcting?) now if thats not a good balanced bit if viewing is i dont know what is. That at least is evident. BALANCED reporting is not the issue (if you actually have a grasp of what the thrust of my dislike of the BBC is) WITLESS and REPETITIVE (like some other people i could mention) IS the issue. Like i said, before. They might have been burried in the bombing, the ppl pulling the trigger killed the launch systems destroyed. there are many reasons. Could well be- but they are POSSIBLE reasons, and whilst your input on the possible answers are appreciate and stored for future retrieval, they do not answer the question and my point stands: unless people ask these questions they will never be answered by our governments. see above. another reason is Saddam learnt somthing from 1990, thats how to manipulate the press. ie. he wasnt a religous man, but just before the 1990 confilct he walked into a mosque and preyd to allah. a lot of arabs instantly took his side. so i wouldnt be surprised if he didnt use them as it would just vindicate the US's reasons for war. Once again you have missed the point entirely- what good is lack of vindication of the USA's war IF YOU NO LONGER CONTROL YOUR COUNTRY? My point is. like we have seen throught out this war with the Mad Iraq minster, who lied about everything. His lying was not mad- it was to maintain the Iraqi govt's hold on the people as long as possible by controlling all media presented to them so that they would not revolt, as they did in Basra 12 years ago when they were convinced the USA was coming to their aid. he probably isnt given credible information. u think anyones gonna tell him they are losing? Quite possibly true- but Saddam is not an idiot, whatever you have or have not decided he is. Evil and monstrous yes- but he has not gained and clung onto power this long by being a mad, bumbling dictator who isnt smart enough to get accurate information. He is not stupid enough to honestly believe anything other than he would EVENTUALLY lose in a sustained war with the USA, hence why his hope was that international pressue would make the USA back off. Also hence why he was able to escape Baghdad- he obviously had pre-planned routes ready. as for avoiding the US? a monkey can spot an army moving towards baghdad. Pretty damn smart monkey that can get through a permiter circle of tanks around baghdad without being spotted. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't your precious BBC report (as did everyone else) that Baghdad was ENCIRCLED? Yeah, I guess Saddam just walked straight out, waved, and hen disappeared into the desert with his whole political entourage didnt he... any moron could do that... better yet watch the BBC and find out whats going on I seem to be considerably better informed than you are, sir. How about you stop watching the BBC and actually discover what the real world is like, hm? ah ok, u ask questions 'i wont, but ill try and answer yours with my 'inferior BBC backed knowledge' Thank you for your answer(s), where they have actually appeared, I am thankful for your opinions and they have been stored for future retrieval. I have tried to answer that a few times now. Ill bet my house that they will find them. Thank you for your answer(s), where they have actually appeared, I am thankful for your opinions and they have been stored for future retrieval. and why didnt he use them? we shall never know. Thats a shame. Because attitudes like that are how governments do illegal things- it is the duty of every citizen in a democracy to question their government. Governments which do not answer to the people are very dangerous, and they will not answer to the people unless we force them to. whay did he move his repbulican gaurd out into the open where US forces could take them apart, why not engage in heavy street fighting, like in other towns? Almost certainly a distraction so he could make plans to evacuate himself and his entire government out of Baghdad- as the entire capital seems to be deserted. Maybe the chemicle weps were for Chem ali to use who is now dead. there are loads of reasons. prehaps his men didnt want to and surrendered. maybe someone lost the key to the machine, maybe his ministers killed saddam because they thought it was just to much...list gos on... Thank you for your answer(s), where they have actually appeared, I am thankful for your opinions and they have been stored for future retrieval. However the actual answers are still something that I wish to be informed of, and as they are of direct importance to the legality of this war and the credibility of the British and American governments I think they are very important questions, regardless of your views on their pointlessness. ah well that proves it. public opionin now backs this war, do u? the public belive saddam has checmicle weapons, do u? Approximately 53% of people do not think this war was worth it according to recent polls (I cannot remember the sources unfortunately even though I read them yesterday) so how does that affect YOUR opinions, as public opinion should obviously dictate mine? Are u dying because the BBC might be better then SKY news? Yes of course. I'm suffering a seizure right now. Oh the pain and the horror of it all- proven wrong on all these points by such an intelligent advocate of the BBC's obviously fantastic reporting that has not been dumbed down to idiot level at all. Excuse me while I am wheeled into the local hospital. Give me a break. is it painfull for you? here, have a kidney, im donating Cheers, I needed something to throw darts at. I dont feel anything your saying about BBC cannot be said about SKY either. I'm very happy for you. Thank you for your answer(s), where they have actually appeared, I am thankful for your opinions and they have been stored for future retrieval. Posted by impactor returns on 04-11-2003 at 08:12 AM:
I hope you are writing to the BBC and every other studio in the country
maybe you should write and ask them how it works? your superb general knowledge and unswervingly superior understanding of the world. I hope i can be of help in your desperate times When is the marriage? Deer god man, you should know when your own marriage is! are you honestly telling me that Lord High Rageh (you could try and spell his name right if you think that much of him) Hey, im not the one calling him 'Lord' gets on a flight and heads back to BBC Television Centre to lecture the presenters on what to write? No because they have these different mediums, they can use TV, a phone, or the internet. its amazing what modern tech can do FIELD reports are written by FIELD reporters- STUDIO reports are written by STUDIO STAFF. Thats good. im glad schooling in this country is still up to standard with the current Labour gov Don't lecture me on this nonsense I've actually had some dealings with this industry School paper doesnt count so I have a minor concept of how it works. yep 'minor' Can I ask to see this information? I don't question it's accuracy but I've not heard any criticisms of the BBC from the Armed Forces- They covered it on SKY news WITLESS and REPETITIVE (like some other people i could mention) IS the issue. So everyone who watchs the BBC news is Witless and repetitive then? Could well be- but they are POSSIBLE reasons, and whilst your input on the possible answers are appreciate and stored for future retrieval, they do not answer the question and my point stands: unless people ask these questions they will never be answered by our governments. I can only give possible answers, no one can give u a real answer, no one from here at least. unless they have some inside knowledge of the situation at hand what good is lack of vindication of the USA's war IF YOU NO LONGER CONTROL YOUR COUNTRY? NO ONE CAN ANSWER THAT. im trying to give u possible answers to your almost currently impposible question. i gave many scenarios to what might have happend. u can ask all u like but it cannot be answered at the present time His lying was not mad- Is that your pro opinion on his mental health?, it was to maintain the Iraqi govt's hold on the people as long as possible by controlling all media presented to them so that they would not revolt, as they did in Basra 12 years ago when they were convinced the USA was coming to their aid. Yes and my point is, just hows shilded is Saddam from the turth aswell? Quite possibly true- but Saddam is not an idiot, whatever you have or have not decided he is. Evil and monstrous yes- but he has not gained and clung onto power this long by being a mad, bumbling dictator who isnt smart enough to get accurate information. He is not stupid enough to honestly believe anything other than he would EVENTUALLY lose in a sustained war with the USA, hence why his hope was that international pressue would make the USA back off. Also hence why he was able to escape Baghdad- he obviously had pre-planned routes ready. I dont doubt he has maintained controll through information, but when the crap hits the fan, and its got serious, how many of his closest aides have faltered and lied to save thier own necks which are obviously on the line going by past recored Pretty damn smart monkey that Monkeys are smart. i saw this TV show on BBC once, showed how they could put thier own nappys on. clever monkey can get through a permiter circle of tanks around baghdad without being spotted. he wouldnt have been a clever monkey if he waited for the door to close now would he Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't your precious BBC report (as did everyone else) that Baghdad was ENCIRCLED? Yes Yeah, I guess Saddam just walked straight out, waved, and hen disappeared into the desert with his whole political entourage didnt he... In 1990 it was know he moved with only 1 bodygaurd, keeping to the desert, to avoid detection. no need for his entourage. that would be the sign of a moronic monkey I seem to be considerably better informed than you are, sir. How about you stop watching the BBC and actually discover what the real world is like, hm? Well seeing as u cant answer your own question, u dont seem any better informed then i Thats a shame. Because attitudes like that are how governments do illegal things- it is the duty of every citizen in a democracy to question their government. Here, take my soap box Governments which do not answer to the people are very dangerous, and they will not answer to the people unless we force them to. I agree, but it is a possiblity that the reasons have died with saddam. Almost certainly a distraction so he could make plans to evacuate himself and his entire government out of Baghdad- as the entire capital seems to be deserted. Yep. could be. *adds to list* However the actual answers are still something that I wish to be informed of, me to. and as they are of direct importance to the legality of this war and the credibility of the British and American governments I think they are very important questions Yeah, damm right! regardless of your views on their pointlessness. Hey i work for the BBC, what did u expect? At the current time, the chances of finding a difinitve answer are pretty slim Approximately 53% of people do not think this war was worth it according to recent polls (I cannot remember the sources unfortunately even though I read them yesterday) Which poll, who voted, the whole country? so how does that affect YOUR opinions, as public opinion should obviously dictate mine? I saw a different vote. But poll dont effect my opinion. unlike yours. Excuse me while I am wheeled into the local hospital. Here have a straight jacket Give me a break. no no, its best u stay here, in this nice padded room for now I dont feel anything your saying about BBC cannot be said about SKY either. I'm very happy for you. u can feel the love here folks Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-11-2003 at 09:34 AM:
I can't even be bothered to answer that.
All me to sum up: The BBC can do no wrong, any other point will be challenged for the sake of just making argument, regardless of what has already been said. Wonderful. I agree entirely. If it helps turn you on more, I am completely insane and have palpably lost to your fine methods of political discussion and razor-sharp wit. Whatever you need, darling. Take the last word, as it obviously means the world to you. Life's too short to spend arguing with with faeces like you. Posted by Computron on 04-11-2003 at 03:03 PM:
Victory in the war is not victory in the argument about the war.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2081376/ Posted by Nosecone on 04-11-2003 at 08:49 PM:
quote:Yes, Its called Pesticide and other normal chemicals. Even the person in charge on the ground where the latest batch of chemicals was found has said he doesn't believe its any WOMD. The story of these chemicals were constantly being used by the pro war campaign yet once the soldier said that that finding of chemicals hasn't been mentioned since. quote:Oh please, I cannot believe you are stupid enough to say that, You really have no idea about life do you, You must of led a sheltered life for you to have such crazy thoughts sheba - Ignoring International Law (attacking a country without declaring war/ targetting civilians in war) is what the "terrorists" that did the sept 11th did, by making that statement you are saying that you are the same as them. Go on squirm your way out of that Posted by Jim on 04-12-2003 at 12:19 AM:
They haven't found any of these WOMD, and probably never will - cause they probably don't exist.
Strike 1: Bush Adminstration said Iraqi forces in the southern Iraq had WOMD to use on Coalition troops. To this day, out of the thousands that surrendered and / or been killed, none have been found. To help justify Bush's war, you need to prove it with evidence, none has been presented - no smoking gun yet, nothing. Strike 2: Bush Adminstration claims that they had a lot of intelligence on these WOMD. If this were true, then it should be no sweat to send troops into the locations to get these WOMD. Hell, they claim to have massive mobile chemical labs running around, yet no one else has even seen these things, nor a picture of them. I heard once they were on tracks as well, making it even easier to find them, IMO. These haven't been mentioned again thus far, nor have they found any. Of course, one could counter by saying they don't want to mention it for security reasons. To that, I'd say they need all the evidence they can get, because as it stands, they have none. Strike 3: According to Rumsfiled - Suggests U.S.-led military forces will not find weapons of mass destruction without locating the right people who have information about their whereabouts. In other words, "it was about oil, period." or Copout. Posted by Best First on 04-12-2003 at 03:07 AM:
quote:Dude! It's not about the oil! Thats leftist liberal pro-abortion, athiest gay rights conspiracy nonsense! I can't believe anyone would be so naive to think that! Next thing you will be saying we didn't do a good job in 'nam! Moo! Hence of course the fact that while Bagdads main hosipitals are defenceless against looters, to th extent doctors are moving people onto the street to keep the safe, the oil fields are nice and secure. Hearts and minds people, hearts and minds. Personally, i would add to your list a bit, not only was the oil a factor, so was making a big show of force after 9/11, and getting a further American foothold in the region. Plus think of all those juicy arms contracts - hey George, need some campaign funds? No problem! Of course ill have to take my hand out of your ass for a few seconds to get my wallet.... Posted by god on 04-12-2003 at 03:21 AM:
it's about stabilisation of the world economy, getting rid of an annoyance and having a foothold into the worst place on earth, putting in some kind of rational education. Besides no one get's hurt by tradeoff, you know why? they are multibeneficial.
Posted by Jim on 04-12-2003 at 11:20 AM:
"U.S. Army troops and armor did block access to the main palace grounds. The Oil Ministry also seemed intact with a heavy U.S. military presence inside. Also intact were some of the power installations, power stations and power grids."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/898588.asp Yep, while looting is getting worse, and ancient artifacts from the beginning of civilization get stolen, we still keep the oil safe for the US...err.. Iraqi People. Posted by Blacksword on 04-12-2003 at 04:56 PM:
quote: You forgot evolutionist in there Besty [QUOTE]Originally posted by god: it's about stabilisation of the world economy, getting rid of an annoyance and having a foothold into the worst place on earth, putting in some kind of rational education. Besides no one get's hurt by tradeoff, you know why? they are multibeneficial. I'm sure all the people who live in "the worst place on earth" appreciate your sentiment. Glad you have the authority to make such a pronoucement laddie. Your unending litany of arrogant, superior-minded, vaguely bigotted crap is getting really tiring. As to no one getting hurt in the trade off how's a bout the thousands of civilian casualties who are either dead or the majority who are mutilated. The Red Cross stopped counting casualties after the first few days, or have you conveiently forgotten? We'll never know in truth how much civilian blood was spilled because of this war. I can only pray the blood spilled after it, in the post Saddam chaos is as limited as possible. Posted by Sheba on 04-12-2003 at 08:38 PM:
quote:Dude, nobody likes it when civilians are casualties (and remember, casualties does NOT ALWAYS = DEATH!), but consider the fact that Saddam killed his own people on a daily basis as a matter of course, and in FAR MORE HORRIBLE ways than getting bombed. (Acid baths, "tree-shredders", bleeding to death from a tongue yankage...need I continue?) And we'll probably never know how many of the civilian actual deaths were caused directly by the actions of Saddam's lackeys. An NPR reporter got a hint though early on in the war--in one hospital, the people all had shrapnel wounds consistent with having been hit by Iraqi antiaircraft fire as it came back down--NOT from US Bombs. I'm not saying nobody got hit by a US bomb, but it's probably far less than we think. Oh did you see where an Egyptian guy commented that NOBODY believes Al-Jazeera TV anymore? Heheheh and you guys were sooooo sure that Al-Jazeera was the $#** when it comes to news accuracy...lol. Posted by Blacksword on 04-12-2003 at 10:15 PM:
Well the latest figures are 600-700 dead, whihc means there's probably thousands of wounded. All from dear Rumsfeld's "weapons with humanity" and precision. Precision doesn't mean **** all when it's a ****ing 2000 lb bomb. Anything in the area gets flattened. And the accuracy rate was about 75%. Given how many missiles and bombs were set off that's not an encouraging figure. Statistically nice but in real life erms not all that comforting.
As to Iraqi weapons there'll be debate over that until the end of the millenium but the fact is that the vast majority of deaths due to bombings were caused by American and British weapons. The even more important fact is that Iraqi's who have lost loved ones or have been wounded, lost limbs or been otherwise debilitated will not necessarily think about, "Oh but Saddam did this," It'll be "those filthy Americans killed/maimed me/my family/my friends". Also keep in mind the effect of all that footage of the dead and wounded on the people of the region. A lot of them (and polls support this) aren't going to be thinking about what Saddam did or might have done if left where he wasm the focus will be on what the American and British did. Saddam, though a monster was one of their own, these killings were done by outsiders people who they have seen exploit their people before, strangeres who have no place on Arab land. Perceptions are everything and I don't believe anyone can say the perceptions in the Arab world as a whole, of the West right now are improved by this action. Posted by Best First on 04-13-2003 at 02:33 PM:
quote:Uh... 2 things? 1) Why is the word of 'an Egyptian guy' to be considered gospel? Ever hear of balanced evidence (yes, i did just ask Sheba that question!) 2) Where did anyone say they were 'sure that Al-Jazeera was the $#** when it comes to news accuracy'? Oh, wait, you have morphed into THE AMAZING STRAWMAN! again. Gotcha. Yeah we all said that. Nudge Nudge, wink wink. Very clever... Posted by impactor returns on 04-13-2003 at 02:54 PM:
quote:Depends on how u look at it. either way we were gonna have a war. so. they could have used cheaper un guided bombs, and not given a crap, or used more expensive bombs and get 75% accuracy instead of some thing like 25%. The stat is. Less ppl probably died due to the weapons used, and where they were intended for. whether or not any of this was necassary is different question. quote:Well theres a reason to that. the Iraqs wernt doing any bombing. so... Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 04-13-2003 at 03:32 PM:
quote:And the Egyptian Prime Minister commented that this conflict has made America and Britain so unpopular in the Arab world that it will have created 100 Osama Bin Ladens. Posted by Sheba on 04-14-2003 at 12:31 AM:
quote:I forget the guy's name and title. It wasn't the Egyptian Prime Minister though, it was one of the guys at one of the news agencies. I'd have it here at my fingertips but I think the newspaper I actually bought got recycled since then. It was in several newspapers though. Aaaaaaand considering Baghdad Bob's b.s. having been broadcast all over Al-Jazeera, it's no wonder they don't believe it any more. quote:Nice try but shaka when the walls fell. It's not a straw man! Somebody here ACTUALLY said that Al-Jazeera was a good source of information! Doesn't matter if it was two people or ten people. SOMEBODY said it. We're Right, Left's Wrong – AGAIN April 11, 2003 This revelation that CNN covered up Saddam Hussein's genocide raises a broader question. I've been appalled at the lack of moral outrage by the left, not just in the media, but among congressional Democrats as well. You people of the peace movement have a lot to explain. You have oriented and organized your peace movement around defending this genocidal regime. You chose to compare Bush to Hitler! You people on the left have always claimed human rights as your number one motivating factor for existing. I can think of no greater human rights violation than genocide. Yet you organized your peace movement, you organized your attack on the Bush administration; you organized your defense of the United Nations, around this genocide that was going on in Iraq by Saddam Hussein. You said you supported the troops but not the war. Well, among many things, this is a war of regime change, it's a war to find weapons of mass destruction, and it's also a war of liberation. You can't say the Bush administration never talked about liberating the Iraqi people and bringing them freedom. If this war hadn't been fought and won, there would have been no liberation. You cannot forget, folks, that only last week, there was a major philosophical argument in this country about whether we should do this. Many of you people on the left couldn't find one reason to do it, other than it was a war for oil. One of your compatriots at Columbia University openly hoped for a million Mogadishus. You people have a lot of explaining to do. I have been arguing all of my adult life that I, that all of us, are on the right side, the correct side of all these important issues. And as such, we argue, we reason, we illustrate, we re-argue, we re-demonstrate, we persuade, we try to convince as many people as possible, knowing that we are fighting an uphill battle that hasn't been won for decades. Suddenly, not only have I, you, and all of us been right on this war, the other side has been wrong, and not just wrong, so wrong they could not have been more wrong had they tried to be, and they flaunted how wrong they were with every arrow in their quiver. The editorial pages, the front pages, the television cameras, the streets in San Francisco and New York City, teach-ins, Hitler analogies - as wrong as you could be in as many places as you could be. You couldn't have been more wrong. Suddenly, ladies and gentlemen, we don't have to prove our case. We weren't wrong. We don't have to prove why we were right. Events demonstrate we were right. Liberals now have to prove their case – and they can't. Posted by Computron on 04-14-2003 at 01:07 AM:
quote:A modship to the 1st person to point out the fallacy inherent in here and the rest of her post... Edit - http://slate.msn.com/id/2081376/ Victory in war is not victory in the argument for war. Please try to bear this in mind... Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 04-14-2003 at 04:49 AM:
Al Jazeera has been, and probably will be a good source of information. It's true that during the war it was stunningly biased, but this seems to be recent development. In any case it still represents an excellent source of information, because it presents an arab perspective. You're not going to get that on Fox, CNN, ITN or even the BBC.
A biased source can still be valuable as long as you are aware of the bias. Posted by impactor returns on 04-14-2003 at 08:16 AM:
quote: quote:Compy, its YOU who must explain! Yes you, and you only! Posted by impactor returns on 04-14-2003 at 09:43 AM:
How many coalition soilders are dead, POW or MIA?i know its not over just yet...
Posted by Best First on 04-14-2003 at 09:53 AM:
quote: Posted by Computron on 04-14-2003 at 11:16 AM:
Posted by Redstreak on 04-14-2003 at 11:43 AM:
quote:Heh...I sense straw burning there, as per usual. Posted by Sheba on 04-14-2003 at 07:52 PM:
quote:You're missing the point. The point was, there were people saying some pretty extremist things (like that professor at Columbia) that look like real idiots for having said what they said. A million Mogadishus?! The point is the people making objections and predictions of that nature will be--and are currently being--PROVEN WRONG. If they are arguing against the war based on those things, and are proven wrong, then they have no legs to stand on. That's ALLLLLLLLLL it's about man. There is no logical fallacy here--you just think there is. An ACTUAL person said that. The fact is, that whether or not the people in the anti-war movement actually in their hearts support Saddam or not is not relevant. These guys could swear up and down the road that they don't support Saddam, and that's fine, but it doesn't matter. You know why? Because it doesn't matter what a person thinks, when the ideas of the person, put into practice, in all practicality do the exact opposite of the stated intent of the person! Incidentally, have you noticed that Kim Jong Mentally Ill is singing a whole different tune now? Oh yes. He actually will accept the suggestion of multilateral talks about his nukes. I guess the Iraq war scared the crap out of him. Peace through strength. It works--every time it's tried. quote: So would I, but I think you could have at least done an internet search about it. quote: Probably because they knew it was totally false and didn't say anything? quote: Don't you know a phreaking paraphrase when you see one?! quote: Well I probably could have posted the accompanying links that have the evidence you so badly require. But going to www.rushlimbaugh.com will accomplish pretty much the same thing. EVERYTHING Rush says is WELL documented. I don't know what avoidance of facts you think there possibly could be. Posted by Best First on 04-15-2003 at 04:25 AM:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sheba:
So would I, but I think you could have at least done an internet search about it. You would like an answer to a question about your own statement? concession accepted. Probably because they knew it was totally false and didn't say anything? i didnt see any news station saying 'this is false' - they just showed him and it spoke for itself. GHow much al jazerez have you watched exactly Sheba? Don't you know a phreaking paraphrase when you see one?! Yep - and that wasn't one - you; a) drastically altered the meaning to suit yourself and b) attributed it to lots of people rather than one person (which i not you failed to address) - hence putting words in peoples mouths. Posted by Computron on 04-15-2003 at 02:44 PM:
http://www.msnbc.com/c/0/150/428/10x7/030415_war_05.jpg
Angry at America Iraqi protesters shout anti-U.S. slogans during a demonstration in Baghdad on Tuesday. Anti-American protests intensified in the capital and southern Iraq as coalition forces struggle with the delicate task of rebuilding the country. Oh cause you know, this is real good. Gotta love the outpouring of pro-US sentiment breaking out throughout the Middle East. Posted by god on 04-15-2003 at 03:05 PM:
i followed the debate concerning an interim regime in Irak, and i learned 1 thing:
I know understand why saddam suppressed the sjiet majority, religious fanatics they are, gee i thought they'd be happy, but noooooo same goes for people who think this was a bloodbath, less then 5000 dead that's a miracle, if you'd predicted that at the beginning you'd be the super optimist, people in the west loose all realism of life. and about the clash between civilisations is has allready begun, i can only hope the passifist idiots in europe won't make us loose it or make us take desperate actions Posted by impactor returns on 04-15-2003 at 03:23 PM:
many seemed to be concerned with the speed things are taking place at.
Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-15-2003 at 04:03 PM:
quote:You are a fool. On so many levels. Posted by Best First on 04-15-2003 at 07:06 PM:
quote:I kindly suggest you disupte his poinst with calm reason rather than flame. Posted by Sheba on 04-16-2003 at 03:38 PM:
quote:Concession my @$$. It's called why do I have to do EVERYTHING around here?! Probably because they knew it was totally false and didn't say anything? quote: It doesn't matter. Al-jazeera was treating it like it was the truth. CNN sure as heck wasn't. quote: Well you guys seemed to think by what you said that it was superior to US news. Which is an absolute joke. and quote:I wasn't putting any words in any persons mouths that didn't say it. Now, if I'd said a specific person said it (by name) and they hadn't then yes that would be putting words in peoples' mouths. I know it was at least two people. And speaking of putting words in people's mouths, wasn't that what you were doing when you accused protestwarrior of fascism? A particularly important part of fascism (neo or otherwise) is INCREASED GOVERNMENT CONTROL. Yet in the protestwarrior site, at the very place you claim promotes fascism, they very clearly state that they favor LESS government control. Less government control is diametrically opposed to fascism in every way. Therefore, your "protest warrior = neo-fascism" argument = refuted. People often characterize a fascist government as "extreme right-wing" and a socialist government as "extreme left-wing". Others point out that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism are more superficial than actual. The most common feature of fascism cited in contrast to socialism is the fact that neither Hitler nor Mussolini nationalized their nations' industries. Some contend that this difference is also more cosmetic than actual, since both leaders used extreme regulation to control industry, while leaving them in the hands of their owners. Hitler commented on this difference in a letter to Herman Rauschning, where he wrote: "Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings." And here's an article from the NY Post by a guy who's happy that Iraq is liberated. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/73414.htm Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-16-2003 at 04:14 PM:
quote:Fascism, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is a democratic, anti-communist/socialist movement. They fulfill that requirement. Posted by Ultrasabre on 04-16-2003 at 06:00 PM:
This is an essay I did for my English Class:
Operation Desert Strom was the US government’s first attempt to remove Saddam from power. The operation was going along smoothly and US forces were dominating the battlefield. The US forces were so technologically advanced that the Iraqis didn’t even know US troops were in the vicinity until they saw their comrade’s tanks blowing up right before their eyes. The Iraqi’s WW2 era Soviet made T-44 tanks were no match for the US M1-A1 Abrams tanks which have a range of 2 and ½ miles. US also had the very stealthy B-117 stealth bomber that hit key Iraqi targets from the air without Iraqis even knowing they were up in the sky. Because of this overwhelming dominance, it had become apparent that the US led coalition was killing too many Iraqis so President Bush decided that the US had taken enough Iraqi life and called all US forces off the attack. Bush was afraid it would look like the US was there to massacre Iraqis so in order to keep the US on the good side of the World; he left Iraq and left the people to face a vengeful Saddam. It is now the year 2003 and Saddam is again in the crosshairs of US technologically superior weapons. People think we are attacking Saddam because of plentiful supply of oil in Iraq. The people that think that are blinded by the senseless rhetoric of anti-war protestors. Saddam Hussein is being taken out of power because the US views him as a huge threat to the security of the world. Saddam has proven that he is not afraid to use chemical weapons. In the early 1980s, he used chemical weapons to crush a Kurdish rebellion in northern Iraq. In August 1990 he invaded the oil sheikdom of Kuwait, proclaiming it Iraq’s 19th province. I would say he is has bad as Hitler, but that would belittle the holocaust. Saddam Hussein must be taken out of power so that the people of Iraq can know what it is like to be free of tyranny and oppression. Saddam has been known for his brutal tactics and harsh treatment of his own people. The US made a huge mistake by letting Saddam remain in power after desert storm. Saddam severely punished all the people who in any way helped the US during Desert Strom. He gets international shipments of food and medicine and chooses what people are good enough to receive them. Only those who are proven to be the most loyal supporters get to be feed and cured. If he doesn’t like a particular man or woman, there isn’t much hope for them or their family in the future. People will argue that US sanctions have a lot to do with this. Not true, in fact the US sends plenty of aid in for the Iraqi people but needless to say the supplies are given to Saddam’s forces. Even the food that Iraq gets for its “Food for Oil” program it has with the UN goes to Saddam’s loyalist people. This is why people are afraid to show their hatred for Saddam. If the wrong person was to hear them talking bad about Saddam, the punishment will be as severe as anyone can imagine. This includes Rape, beheading, torture, long periods of jail time and public executions. That is just a small list of the atrocities that have been committed under Saddam’s tyrannical regime. He is a tyrant who has started wars with Iran and Kuwait for his own selfish ambitions. On September 22, 1980 Saddam started a bloody war that lasted for eight years and had a devastating effect on the economy of both countries; in which after eight years of senseless bloodshed no territory had been gained by either side but an estimated one million lives had been needlessly lost. August 2nd, 1990, Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait and overran the country shortly after midnight. The Gulf War; dubbed “Operation "Desert Storm" ensued on January 17th, 1991 with the USA leading the way backed by 27 other countries. The war, which wrought massive destruction in Iraq, lasted only six weeks. Saddam had a history of using brute force to get what he wants. This time, America will not just leave and let the people of Iraq to face the future alone. The US, UK and hopefully the UN will help in the reconstruction of Iraq. Saddam Hussein is not only a threat to the people of Iraq, but to the entire world! He has proven he isn’t afraid to use weapons of mass destruction. He used them in the war against Iran and against the Kurds in the late 1980’s and against the Iranians in the Iraq/Iran war. He hates the USA and her allies and would more then likely attack the USA if he had the chance. Saddam might not have the courage to attack America himself, but he could sell his weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations like Al-qaada. If that was to happen, the results could prove to be beyond devastating. Nerve and chemical agents can float in the air and affect millions of people. If mustard gas or sarin was to be released in a crowed morning commute in New York, it would undoubtedly belittle 9/11. 9/11 will always be one of the most horrendous attacks against the USA, but would pale in comparison to an attack with mustard gas and nerve agents. Saddam may not have weapons like Inter continental ballistic missiles, but he does have ballistic missiles that he can arm with chemical weapons and shoot at our allies like the UK or Israel. Many people who once worked under Saddam have defected to the USA. With them they brought information on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program. The USA has yet to prove there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but I seriously believe they will find something. Another reason Saddam’s regime should be toppled is so that all the millions of Iraqis who have lived under oppression for over two decades deserve to choose the fate of their nation and be free. Iraq is divided into 3 different Muslim groups: the Shi’ites, Kurds, and Sunni. The ****’ies make up approximately 60% of the Iraqi population, the Kurds make up about 20-25% and the Sunni make up 20-15%. Saddam is Sunni and hates both the Kurd and the Shi’ites and feared they would someday ban together and over through him. He used such chaotic tactics against these people so they would have an incentive to remain loyal to him. The Sunni and Shi’ites have been at odds with each other for decades. Both believe in Islam, but have different beliefs. The Sunnis hold that the first four caliphs, or rulers, after the Prophet Muhammad were ‘Rightly guided’ whereas Shi'ites are ‘the partisans of Ali’ who believe that the Prophet's son-in-law should have succeeded him directly. The Sunni have been the ruling classes in Iraq though modern times. The Kurds, especially those in Iraq have a very strong sense of national unity and from time to time have pushed for an independent Kurdistan. This has made the countries housing them extremely uneasy. Iraq has been particularly nervous about Kurdish desires for independence, mostly because the land on which the Kurds have always lived includes Iraq's most productive oil fields. 12 years and a few months after Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom ensued and is still under way. Because we left Iraq without taking Saddam out of power and left the people to face his vengeful wrath after Desert Strom, many of the people of Iraq are reluctant to trust the US. They fear if they revolt against Saddam, they will be punished after the US troops leave again. This time, we will not be so merciful toward Saddam and his Regime. On April 8, 2003, US air force dropped four one-thousand pound GPS guided bunker buster bombs in a residential area in Baghdad. Apparently, US had information from a spy that told US intelligence about a big meeting between Saddam, his two sons, and high ranking Iraqi officials. It is still unknown if the strike was successful in killing Saddam. But one thing for certain is that his regime is no longer in control of Iraq. Saddam’s Special Forces like the Iraqi Republican guard and his so called “Fedahine” forces seem to be acting on their own without any authorization from a higher ranking Iraqi official. The entire Iraqi opposition is in total chaos in fact Iraqi officers have abandoned their troops to hide from US led coalition forces. After the US released the notorious most wanted deck of cards in Iraq, some of the people in the deck of cards have given themselves up! The word on the streets is that Saddam is no more. US forces still face sporadic pockets of resistance, but for the most part are pushing though Iraq unchallenged. It is up to the US, UK and the UN to help in the reconstruction of Iraq. The Key word is help them do it, not do it for them. The US needs to show the world that they aren’t there to conquer anyone and influence them with western style democratic governments. Both President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have stressed that the coalition is there to liberate Iraqis, not conquer them. It will now be up to Iraqis to choose their own destiny and know what it is like to decide their own fate. I shall never forget the scenes that showed US Marines helping the indigenous people of Iraq take down the Saddam statue in Baghdad. I saw the end of a Regime responsible for millions of innocent lives be devastated right before my eyes. I saw an oppressed people stand up and shout out in immense happiness from the feeling of finally being free of tyranny. Now it is time for the people of Iraq to have a chance to choose who they want to lead Iraq. It is now time for the people of Iraq to enjoy one of the things that makes the United States of America so great: Freedom! I hope you don't erase this, but if you do, O well. Posted by impactor returns on 04-16-2003 at 06:12 PM:
i dont think theres any denying that Saddam was a ***t and needed to be removed.
it was the intentions behind it which have peeved ppl off. To be honest, if they had started this war with. "lets get rid of saddam because hes a total tit wank" then i dont think anyone would have had a problem with that. Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 04-17-2003 at 05:16 AM:
Has anyone noticed how the USA (or at least the Bush administration) is using the words 'freedom' and 'democracy' in the same way that 19th cnetury empires used the words 'civilisation'? It seems suspiciously like an excuse to invade some countries. I think the world is going to be watching iraq very closely indeed, it would be very risky for the US to try and impose a puppet government at this point.
Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-17-2003 at 05:24 AM:
quote:theres alot of truth in that. this is highlighting the utter faithlessness and disillusionment many people have with their government. Posted by Computron on 04-17-2003 at 11:07 AM:
quote:I too have to agree. Obviously it needs to be fleshed out a bit, ie, which countries, what plan for the future of those countries etc. Posted by Best First on 04-17-2003 at 02:12 PM:
quote: Posted by Computron on 04-18-2003 at 11:40 AM:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/850567.asp?0cv=CA01
“"THE IRAQI WAR teaches a lesson that in order to prevent a war and defend the security of a country and the sovereignty of a nation it is necessary to have a powerful physical deterrent force only,” the statement said, citing a foreign ministry spokesman. “As we have already declared, we are successfully reprocessing more than 8,000 spent fuel rods at the final phase, as we sent interim information to the U.S. and other countries concerned early in March after resuming our nuclear activities from December last year." ~ North Korean Foreign Minister Gee, who woulda thunk it? Now that NK knows we'll invade they are now more eager to get weaponary... Posted by Sheba on 04-19-2003 at 08:06 PM:
quote:Dude by that definition just about anybody could. That Oxford definition encompasses such a broad range that the definition is pretty much meaningless. I'm convinced that most of these eggheads that make up the definitions in the first place are at least socialist in some way, and they put fascism the way they do in order to make socialism seem halfway decent good. Instead of going by CHEAP regular dictionary definitions, you should be going by more descriptive ones like as are in encyclopedias. Strangely, though, some dictionaries do have half decent definitions. Here are the online definitions of fascism from various sources online: From dictionary.com: fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm) n. often Fascism A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control. fascism n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism) (interestingly, that totally contradicts the Oxford definition, which says fascism is democratic) From Merriam-Webster Online: Main Entry: fas·cism Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- Function: noun Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces Date: 1921 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge> From Encyclopedia.com: fascism Related: Political Science (fash izem) , totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini , who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain. The term is derived from the Latin fasces . Again, this one contradicts the entry you got from Oxford's. From Cambridge Dictionary (online): (from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary) Fascism noun [U] a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed fascist adjective (ALSO fascistic) fascist groups a fascist dictator/regime fascist noun [C] 1 someone who supports fascism 2 a person of the far right in politics 3 DISAPPROVING someone who does not allow any opposition: He reckons all policemen are fascists and bullies. Very simple, very cheap definition, much like the Oxford one. Explains everything, and thus, NOTHING. This one's from Wordsmyth.net dictionary: Syllables: fas-cism Part of Speech noun Pronunciation fae shih zEm Definition 1. (often cap.) a system of government characterized by strong, often dictatorial control of political and economic affairs, and often by warlike nationalism and brutal suppression of political dissidents and ethnic minorities. Definition 2. any of the distinctive principles or practices of this system. Definition 3. (usu. cap.) a party or government espousing this system, esp. the party in power in Italy from 1922 to 1943. Cheap, but a little closer to accurate than the oxford or the cambridge one. this one's from AllWords.com: fascism a political movement or system characterized mainly by a belief in the supremacy of the chosen national group over all others, and in which there is, typically, state control of all aspects of society, a supreme dictator, suppression of democratic bodies such as trade unions and emphasis on nationalism and militarism. Any way you slice THIS definition from AllWords, there's no way in HELL that protestwarrior fits. They do NOT believe in State control of all aspects of society. Militarism is a cheap addition, since communist countries are every bit as militaristic as any fascist regime you ever saw--check out Red China and North Korea, and read your history books about the USSR. Well since even the dictionaries can't agree amongst themselves what exactly fascism is, who do you think you are to decide what qualifies, considering you are basing it on the CHEAPEST and most vague of definitions, because the more elaborate definitions DO NOT FIT??!! quote: I NEVER post ANYTHING baseless. I always have a source. What I am wondering is do you ever look at opposing information FOR YOURSELF? Why should I post the source if you won't even look at it? quote: Well I'm assuming he's got friends he's been talking to. quote: All the Al-Jazeera I've seen is the stuff they sent over through CNN. War coverage. Three weeks' worth. But it doesn't matter anyways how much I've seen. What matters is what OTHER PEOPLE have seen and then they talk about it. quote: Stop trying to be Compy. It just doesn't work for you. Check the previously closed Iraq thread... and I wasn't putting any words in any persons mouths that didn't say it. quote:Concession accepted Now, if I'd said a specific person said it (by name) and they hadn't then yes that would be putting words in peoples' mouths. I know it was at least two people. quote: I forgot exactly who said it at the time. Searching for it would have taken too long at the time. Check the OLD Iraq thread. And speaking of putting words in people's mouths, wasn't that what you were doing when you accused protestwarrior of fascism? quote:Neo-Fascism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (the ONLY place on the net that even HAD a definition of neo-fascism!) The terms Neo-Nazism and Neo-Fascism refer to any social or political movement founded on the ideology and symbolism of Nazism or Fascism. Neo-Fascist movements are generally anti-Semitic, racist, and xenophobic. Their supporters are frequently low-income young men who blame their or their society's problems on immigrants and a presumed Jewish conspiracy. Many, possibly most Neo-Fascist groups espouse violence, and for this reason they are a source of concern to law enforcement. Many Neo-Fascist groups also espouse Holocaust denial, Holocaust revisionism or disbelief in the genocides committed under the Nazi regime. A particularly important part of fascism (neo or otherwise) is INCREASED GOVERNMENT CONTROL. quote: But then you have to assume that these guys want one of the other two kinds. Which you cannot prove in the slightest. All you have is scurrilous assumptions and innuendo. Yet in the protestwarrior site, at the very place you claim promotes fascism, they very clearly state that they favor LESS government control. Yep, but... Less government control is diametrically opposed to fascism in every way. quote: *sigh* Scapegoating is human nature...and your point is.....? quote: I can think of a lot of left-wing organizations that tend to scapegoat the Right for all the problems...remember Hillary Clinton's claim of a "vast right wing Conspiracy"? quote:.......... quote: The Revolution. Classic example of COMMUNIST vindication thru conflict. Fascism needs an enemy to breathe? Pffffft so does communism. How can you have a revolution unless there are borgeoisie to revolt against? Ever notice that every time the US is close to ending the Cuban embargo on trade, that Fidel does something to screw it up (like execute people, or crack down on dissidents, etc...so the embargo won't be lifted, so he can continue to scapegoat the USA, so he can stay in the People's good graces! SO tell me. Is Castro communist, or Fascist?! Like I said before, these definitions tend to explain everything, and thus, NOTHING. quote:Oh yeah like Communism NEVER did that.... quote:Do it for Mother Russia! For the Revolution! We will be like Che! Communist Patriotism. Kinda tends to throw a monkey wrench in the definitions, doesn't it? quote: So then Jiang Zemin and Kim Jong Mentally Ill (and the Late Stalin, Kruschev, Andropov, Mao, etc) are actually fascists, not communists? ------------------------------------------- quote:No, it's NOT. You haven't proven any such thing. I didn't see it there. You have not given me the source of your definition. I don't know if your definition is incomplete! So many of the definitions of REGULAR fascism ARE. I can't find the definition you used ANYWHERE on the net, so I'm assuming you got it out of a book. WHAT BOOK?! quote:That's such simplistic reasoning that I'm LMAO right now. People have the right to free speech. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD!!! That's where you libs seem to get mixed up. These guys aren't talking about silencing the opposition, they're talking about ignoring them. No authoritarianism required. You CAN'T point to any sort of embracing of ANY " other authoritarianism" in protestwarrior. Either thru military or religion. It's just NOT THERE. Thus, your argument, such as it is, is bollocks. quote: It's funny to watch you go back to old arguments that I've already refuted and then cling to them as if they were still true. quote: That means NOTHING. quote:Dude you're splitting hairs trying to weasel your way out of this one. And using cheapness to make your opinion seem fact. Cheapness of overly broad definitions. You could put a monkey in a cabbage patch doll's clothing and it wouldn't make the monkey a cabbage patch doll. quote: No, I'm not "wrong," I AM DISPUTING YOUR OPINION. That's ALL you are relying on. YOUR OPINION. quote: Whose perception of the world is warped? quote: I don't believe it because the reasoning you used to justify it is really stretching things, it's YOUR OPINION, and it's bollocks. Therefore, your "protest warrior = neo-fascism" argument = refuted. quote:Ahhhh so refreshing to see the superiority complex of the center and left of center... All you HAD was rhetoric! You are relying on a bunch of gimped up definitions that could fit anybody and anything. quote: No, that's your project. You illustrate it very nicely yourself. Posted by Blacksword on 04-20-2003 at 12:23 AM:
*wipes tears from eyes from the seeing the horrible wreck of reason left in Sheba's wake*
My forehead hurts from me palming it in incredulity. I'll leave Besty to what you just said. But just a few things. quote:Yes all intellectuals are socialists come to eat you children. Just like all univerisities, which is why you seem to respect the net (where you can post any unsupported junk you like) over acredited sources. The net is okay as a source but any school will tell you, your site better have good acredited data before you can use it in a paper. But of course all professors are leftie propagandists so who cares what they say. There are plenty of conservatives with degrees my dear, you just seem to brush them aside for your conspiracy theories. Well after the long digression on with the main point of this post. Just to set the record straight I'd like to post why I opposed the war from the beginning to avoid being crushed into a cliche box as the right seems to love doing (though to be fair the extreme left does this too): 1) Unilateral action by a powerful nation Sure Britian was part of it but if you look at the polls the people sure sisn't support the action. Blair did it on his own in line with his personal beliefs and in the interests of US relations. Not very democratic there either. This sets a bad precedent that a powerful nation can go in and change another country's government if it should happen to disagree with that government's practices. In this case I don't think anyone can do anything but vehemently decry the Hussein regime but as some have asked who's next? And this was doen on who's authority? 2) Damage to international relations and institutions.And at what expense to international relations? It split the EU, damaged the UN and made much of the world go from supporting the US to reviling it. There is significant indication that neither France or Germany would have used their vetos as the majority of the Security Council leading up to the vote appeared to be against invasion of Iraq. It was not France or Germany wounding the UN it was the US and Britain. (actually the whole Veto idea is something about the UN I've always though was harmful. It is a relic of the old "spheres of influence" school of international policy and has no place in a democratic body) 3) Cost in lives. Estimates on civilian deaths are over a thousand now and injuries are well in excess of that number. The number of dead Iraqi soldiers is again in the thousands. More spent Uranium munitions have been dumped into a region already suffering from teh radiation spilling from that left behind in teh last war. How many more will die or suffer in the continuing humanitarian crisis s untold but it is not looking rosy. Was this worth it? Right now it looks like it, and I hope that it will prove to be worth it but again only time will tell. 4) The timing. Saddam Hussein has been in official power since 1979 or so and his party has ruled since the late 1960's, so why just now? He used chemical weapons in the Iran, Iraq war but those were supplied by the US, France and Germany and the West was mute. He supressed his people in all that time and the West was mute. The oft mentioned slaughter of the Kurds was in 1988 but no one cared then and no action was taken until the Gulf War in 1991. THe reason for that action (historical opinion) had little to do with concern for Kuwait, but was rather to do with the fact that Saddam was well on his way to invading Saudi Arabia and putting the two largest supplies of oil under one rule. That's a concept no body liked. In fact that's been against Western policy since the region was cut up after WW1. Which leads to my next point. 5) The situation is the West's fault When the British redrew the Middle Eastern map around 1920 they did so with the intention of keeping the region weak and divided so the West could cheaply exploit it for its oil. THus they produced the artificial nation of Iraq, much as they did with Yugoslavia. Both were dramatically unstable due to the blending of mutally hostile ethinic groups. Both could only be ruled by a harsh hand. The British imposed and supported a ruthless "constitutional" monarchy which ruled the nation viciously until the end of the fifties. Various governments ruled after until the US helped the Ba'ath (sp?) party come to power. And they supported it until it's leader started buying weapons to the Soviets. Then when Saddam came to power in the party the US decided to woo him back to their cause with weapons, money and help in entrenching his position as they had just lost their dear bloodthirsty friend the Shah of Iran. THey needed a strongman in the region and if Saddam wasn't ideal he was all there was and they were damn well gonna use him. The only thing suitable about the Americans and the British being hte players in the war, was the fact that they helped make the mess. 6) The still dubious post war intentions Intermediate military rule by the pentagon, prping up leaders who owe only the US for theie position and have no connection with the people, American companies getting the contracts. All this doesn't look good for the US assertions of democracy. Neither does the fac that large numbers of Iraqis aren't being represented simply because they refuse to deal with the US. THe fact that there is likely to be permanent US military bases among other things makes this all look very fishy. Still could be proven wrong but I doubt I will be in totality, nomatter how much I'd like to be wrong. 7) Lies about intentions There is no tangible ties to 9/11. Iraq's weapons cannot hit US soil. No evidence of support of terrorist organizations who attack the US directly (though tons of evidence for those attacking Israel, but Israel is not US soil). No evidence yet of a large scale WOMD production or deployment. May turn up but the fact that the UN inspectors aren't being let back in will taint any finds. "Oh they're all in Syria" won't convince a huge number of people either. Yes he did have a lot in the past but did he have appreciable numbers of weapons at the time of the declaation of war? Unknown. Was he a threat to the region? Again debatable. He was effectively defanged by the first Gulf War and the incessant missile attacks and brutal sanctions (which hurt Iraqis more than Saddam, though they did keep a lot of weapons out of the country, whether the human cost was worth it we'll never know). Was it for the freedom of the Iraqi people? If it had come ten or fifteen years earlier I might have believed such a thing, but today I have trouble fully believing such a thing. The US has desperate need to increase it's stable supply of oil, the economy is in the dumpster, the war on terror gives good excuse to clamp down on the Middle East etc. Probably part of the reason but WOMD and Saddam's danger were first lit up and the freedom argument came later. Be up front first and maybe we'll believe you more. Basically, I don't like the precedent it sets, I don't trust this US regime, I have great fears for the future of that country, I feel too much blood was spilled over largely dubious motives. Saddam is gone, and that's a good thing. I'm glad the war was quick, but that does not make the war right. We'll see over the next few years whether it was the lesser of evils, a necessary evil, or just the action of a self interested power. Again I hope I'm wrong but something sinister tells me I'm going to be less wrong than more. Posted by Papa Snarl on 04-20-2003 at 07:36 AM:
Sheba, I just wondered why you come here.
All that ever happens is you post COMPLETE ARSE, loads of people tell you why it is wrong, and then you make up more COMPLETE ARSE, carry on the discussion, then the same people who had issues with the first load of COMPLETE ARSE rip you secondload of COMPLETE ARSE to bits, so you post a third ot of COMPLETE ARSE... Do you see? *****answer this one point if you can***** When did BF ever mention communism? Why has that been brought into this? Has anybody said they believe in communism? Why did the vast majority of the last post debate how bad you think communism is? Who was it aimed at? There is no communist angle. ARE YOU RETARDED? Or is it because you have no reasonable line of defence, other than to manufacture an angle that you may be able to continue the argument on? Let me illustrate how easy that is to do: quote:My response to that: Sheba, you are an idiot. DO YOU SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Dude. Posted by HoistKeeper 2.0 on 04-20-2003 at 08:20 AM:
quote:They may have some half-decent online descriptions, but the Oxford English dictionary is one of the main, recognised English dictionaries. Hardley CHEAP, as you put it. So as usual your points are invalid. quote:Again, just your contrived point of view therefore invalid. Posted by Getaway on 04-20-2003 at 03:20 PM:
Bush has decided to support an evangelical preacher who will go into Iraq to convert the heatherns. Iraq is a 97% Islamic country and this guy has publically called Islam 'very evil' good choice there Bush way to truly piss off the Iraqi population, thats winning the hearts and minds:sarcastic:
Posted by Best First on 04-21-2003 at 06:43 AM:
---------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Karl Lynch: Fascism, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is a democratic, anti-communist/socialist movement. They fulfill that requirement. ------------------------------------------------ Dude by that definition just about anybody could. OK – as an aside, I agree that the Oxford definition is too simplistic. However, seeing as how we are debating neo-fascism, the huge list of fascist definitions you have posted are by and large, irrelevant to the defence you are construct for your jack booted buddies at protestwanker.com However, while we are here, lets take a look at them, and make a few notes for later, shall we; From dictionary.com: fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm) n. often Fascism A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control. [I] If we look at the last one on the list we see that it does not have to be a system of government – just a matter of dictatorial control. Which nicely coincides with protest warriors aims to silence ‘the left’. [I]fascism n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism) (interestingly, that totally contradicts the Oxford definition, which says fascism is democratic) Yeah, well interestingly Mosley believe in democratic authoritarianism – he hoped that he would be a ‘voted in dictator’, who was given power willingly. And like or not Hitler was more or less legitimately elected – his seizing of peoples rights came after he came to power – although he was not open about his intentions in the way Mosley was. So again we see why these definitions are too simplistic. Im reading on and I note that, while all these definitions are pretty much equal in their simplicity that you single out the Cambridge one for being to ‘cheap’ (whatever that means) and simplistic as it contains points that you don’t agree with, namely 3 DISAPPROVING someone who does not allow any opposition: This in itself seems rather, simplistic – why is this definition, that goes into no more or less detail than any of the others, fit for slander? The only thing I see as cheap is your slandering of the definitions that disagree with you, without explaining or justifying why – the phrase Very simple, very cheap definition, much like the Oxford one. Explains everything, and thus, NOTHING. in particular is an amazing use of empty rhetoric. Overall, seeing as how the exact definition of fascism remains an ongoing source of complex historical debate, I would suggest that dictionary definitions are of little or no use anyway. If you desire understanding of the subject I would suggets that, rather than random searchs across the interent for snippets that agree with you (which remains a poor, and irritating ‘debating’ tactic – people don’t hate you or your ideas Sheba, they hate the way you derail debates with what is generally nonsense, and do so in such a bulky way that the debate shuffles to a halt because you have made it so unwieldy), you actually read about it properly, that is to say books on the subject. See further down for some recommednations. Moving on; Part of Speech noun Pronunciation fae shih zEm Definition 1. (often cap.) a system of government characterized by strong, often dictatorial control of political and economic affairs, and often by warlike nationalism and brutal suppression of political dissidents and ethnic minorities. Definition 2. any of the distinctive principles or practices of this system. Definition 3. (usu. cap.) a party or government espousing this system, esp. the party in power in Italy from 1922 to 1943. Cheap, but a little closer to accurate than the oxford or the cambridge one. this one's from AllWords.com: fascism a political movement or system characterized mainly by a belief in the supremacy of the chosen national group over all others, and in which there is, typically, state control of all aspects of society, a supreme dictator, suppression of democratic bodies such as trade unions and emphasis on nationalism and militarism. Any way you slice THIS definition from AllWords, there's no way in HELL that protestwarrior fits. They do NOT believe in State control of all aspects of society. Militarism is a cheap addition, since communist countries are every bit as militaristic as any fascist regime you ever saw--check out Red China and North Korea, and read your history books about the USSR. Militarism is not a cheap addition? Just stating as such proves nothing. And the fact that it is also common to communism is totally irrelevent to a discussion of fascism. Lots of aspects of communist regimes (although not neccs the original ideology) also ring true of fascism – but we are not discussing communism. If you want to discuss communism start a topic on it. Militarism is a common aspect of fascism, and holds a worthy place in its definition The fact that is is also a common aspect of communism has nothing to do with this discussion. Which brings me to wonder why you are bringing it up. And don’t tell me to swat up on my history luv – I have two degrees in it and have studied with the worlds leading expert on Hitler(Ian Kershaw), who also happens to be a leading expert on Facism, one the the UK’s leading experts on British Fascism (Richard Thurlow) and one of the Uk’s leading experts on anti-semitism (Colin Holmes). Well since even the dictionaries can't agree amongst themselves what exactly fascism is, who do you think you are to decide what qualifies, considering you are basing it on the CHEAPEST and most vague of definitions, because the more elaborate definitions DO NOT FIT??!! Actually – I think if you compare my definition to the above, you will actually find it deeper and more complex than any of them. I mention more elements and interrelate them. And at no point did I use or quote a dictionary. But anyway, seeing as how I maintained that they are neo-fascist and not fascist, this is really rather irrelevant isn’t it? Not to mention that I personally never used any dictionary definitions to justify my point, but rather relied on my evil university education at the hands of some of the worlds leading experts on the subject. And if you want to dispute this, I would suggest that you speak to Maxfan, who studies history in another country to me, but can verify the standing that these individuals have. Moving on again. I NEVER post ANYTHING baseless. I always have a source. What I am wondering is do you ever look at opposing information FOR YOURSELF? Why should I post the source if you won't even look at it? Sorry – but having a source means having some basis in fact, not repeating a factless piece of rhetoric (which is what the articles you post here more often than not are). And really, the ‘I don’t post these sources because I know you would never read them’ claim is a joke. Are you seriously telling me that you have information that you ‘know’ would prove you right, but choose not to post it? Yeah, that sounds likely. Who are you trying to convince here – me, or you? ------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Best First: Or you could try again. Why should that one guys word be taken as gospel? ----------------------------------------- Well I'm assuming he's got friends he's been talking to. Well, ive just relaised that its kinda odd that you have switched to a different debate half way thru the other one, but, ok. Are you seriously claiming that, because this chap, ‘may’ have some friends, that we should take his opinion above all others? Because to me that seems rather, well, absurd. ------------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Best First: How much Al-Jazeera have you seen Sheba? Did i ask that already? I loose track of how many difficult questions you ignore... -------------------------------------------- All the Al-Jazeera I've seen is the stuff they sent over through CNN. War coverage. Three weeks' worth. But it doesn't matter anyways how much I've seen. What matters is what OTHER PEOPLE have seen and then they talk about it. So – yu have not actually seen anything but edited highlights of the tv station that you are ; A)telling us all we said was ‘the **** for facts’, even tho no one, anywhere has actually said that. B) You are slagging off as if you are intimately familiar with. quote: --------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Best First: Where did anyone say anything like this - let alone 'us guys'. Face it, the moment you start attributing generalised opinions to people en mass you are gonna get pinned for it, because your generalisations put words in peoples mouths. Dun Dun Der! THE AMAZING STRAWMAN! --------------------------------------------------- Stop trying to be Compy. It just doesn't work for you. Red Herring, concession accepted. Seems to work just fine. Check the previously closed Iraq thread... and I wasn't putting any words in any persons mouths that didn't say it. Hmm, we have been over this 3 times now. Every time I have addressed your original putting words into peoples mouths, and every time you have ignored my point and repeated pointless rhetoric like the above. So again im wondering who you are trying to convince. Address the point or go back to the playground where the kind of tactics you are employing might have some chance of success. -------------------------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Best First: Uh - nice line of refute. Concession accepted ------------------------------------------------------ Whats to concede? Now, if I'd said a specific person said it (by name) and they hadn't then yes that would be putting words in peoples' mouths. I know it was at least two people. ------------------------------------------ quote: Originally posted by Best First: Uh-huh. So if you blanket say 'you guys' said this, you are not attributing words to anyone - because you didnt use a name. Sure, that really works. Come on. I mean i know your posistion is, as ever, woefully indefensible, but can't you at least try? Or are you claiming that you were in fact attributing those comments to no one? ------------------------------------------------ I forgot exactly who said it at the time. Searching for it would have taken too long at the time. Check the OLD Iraq thread. You realise that your ‘response’ totally fails to address my point? The point being that because you did not use names and used a generalised term of ‘you guys’ that seemed aimed at everyone in the topic who disagrees with you that you were putting words in peoples mouths? If you cant address the point, but just keep repeating empty rhetoric… then concession accepted And speaking of putting words in people's mouths, wasn't that what you were doing when you accused protestwarrior of fascism? ‘I never accused them of fascism, I accused them of neo-fascism’ Sigh. And I never put words in their mouth – all my evidence was taken from their website. ‘Check the OLD Iraq thread.’ ------------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Best First: Actually - i accused them of neo-fascism. Remeber? I made a lengthy distinction aboit why they were neo-fascist and not fascist. Which was roundly appluaded by everyone except you. In fact, people actually came here especially to applaud it. -------------------------------------- Neo-Fascism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (the ONLY place on the net that even HAD a definition of neo-fascism!) The terms Neo-Nazism and Neo-Fascism refer to any social or political movement founded on the ideology and symbolism of Nazism or Fascism. Neo-Fascist movements are generally anti-Semitic, racist, and xenophobic. Their supporters are frequently low-income young men who blame their or their society's problems on immigrants and a presumed Jewish conspiracy. Many, possibly most Neo-Fascist groups espouse violence, and for this reason they are a source of concern to law enforcement. Many Neo-Fascist groups also espouse Holocaust denial, Holocaust revisionism or disbelief in the genocides committed under the Nazi regime.[/i] A particularly important part of fascism (neo or otherwise) is INCREASED GOVERNMENT CONTROL. Hahahahaha. That’s genius. Nowhere does it mention governmental control, so you just tack a sentence on the end that states what you want to believe so that you don’t have to accept what a bunch of scum****s your buddies at protestewanker,com are. I also note that you highlight one piece of text, but skip over the part that says ‘generally anti-semitic.’. I.E usually but not always. This claim that anti-semitism has anything to so with this discussion has already been DECIMATED by myself and several others. So why are you attempting to bring it up again, let alone with a quote that actually proves you wrong in its statement that It does not have to be anti-semitic. ----------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Best First: Actually - its 'authoritarianism' - the source of that doesnt have to be strictly governmental, for example it could come from a military source, or a religous source. The point is control - it does not have to be governmental. So your wrong on that one already. ------------------------------------------------------------- But then you have to assume that these guys want one of the other two kinds. No I don’t. They were examples, I suggest that you read the posts properly before making scurrilous assumptions in the protestwarrior site, at the very place you claim promotes fascism, they very clearly state that they favor LESS government control. I DON’T CLAIM IT PROMOTES FASCISM – I CLAIM IT IS A NEO-FASCIST ORGANISATION. I HAVE STATED THIS NUMEROUS TIMES, SO WHY DO YOU KEEP TRYING TO MAKE THIS A DEBATE ABOUT FACISM? THIS IS NOT ABOUT FASCIM, THIS IS ABOUT NEO-FACSIM – CAN YOU NOT COMPREHEND THIS? Ahem. ------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Best First: No it isn't. Less control full stop is diametrically opposed to one aspect of fascism. How is, for example, less government control diametrically opposed to any of the following?; ------------------------------------------- A tendency to scapegoat – which often results in racism becoming an element – however racism, and certainly not anti-Semitism are not pre-requisites for something to be ‘fascist’. ---------------------------------------------------- *sigh* Scapegoating is human nature...and your point is.....? My point, which was abundantly clear from my initial post, is that this aspect of fascism (which is what it is), is not diametrically opposed by not having state control, despite your original statement that not craving increased state control diametrically opposes all aspects of fascism. You have not disputed this in this case. Concession accepted. ----------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Best First: A tendency to indulge in conspiracy theory, relating to the scapegoating I can think of a lot of left-wing organizations that tend to scapegoat the Right for all the problems...remember Hillary Clinton's claim of a "vast right wing Conspiracy"? Which again has nothing to do with this debate. Concession accepted. ----------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Best First: A harking back to a golden age or a mythic past and a sense of erosion of certain values, generally related to that past. ----------------------------------------------------- .......... Concession accepted. ------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Best First: A desire for vindication thru conflict, which relates to the tendency to scapegoat and the use of conspiracy – fascism needs an enemy to breath, and of course this enemy is held responsible for the erosion of values and are also the reason that authoritarianism is required The Revolution. Classic example of COMMUNIST vindication thru conflict. Fascism needs an enemy to breathe? Pffffft so does communism. How can you have a revolution unless there are borgeoisie to revolt against? Ever notice that every time the US is close to ending the Cuban embargo on trade, that Fidel does something to screw it up (like execute people, or crack down on dissidents, etc...so the embargo won't be lifted, so he can continue to scapegoat the USA, so he can stay in the People's good graces! SO tell me. Is Castro communist, or Fascist?! Irrelevant to the discussion of protestwanker.com. Concession accepted. Like I said before, these definitions tend to explain everything, and thus, NOTHING. And like I said before – meaningless, baseless rhetoric. If you had a decent awareness of history youw ould not be at all surprised that the definition of fascism also fits a lot of communist regimes. Doesn’t mean they explain ‘everything’. ----------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Best First: A sense of superiority and a right to the mythic heritage ------------------------------------------------ Oh yeah like Communism NEVER did that.... Actually – one of the central themes of early communism is a detachment from the social structures of the past. And sense of harking bark is internal to longstanding corrupt regimes. However, this is of course, irrelevant to the discussion, which is about protestwanker.coms neo-fascist tendencys, and nothing to do with communisim. Concession accepted. ---------------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Best First: Patriotism ---------------------------------------------------- Do it for Mother Russia! For the Revolution! We will be like Che! Communist Patriotism. Kinda tends to throw a monkey wrench in the definitions, doesn't it? No. Because we are talking about fascism, not communism. So again, irrelevant. Concession accepted. As an aside, you seem to have failed to understand that what is important is not the individual aspects, but the inter-relation of these aspects. If you understood this you would never have addressed this individual point with comments like ‘what, so all patriots are fascists?’ in the previous topic. The fact that you are coming out with comments like this suggests to me that you are not actually grasping my point. Otherwise you would try engaging it in an effective way. ---------------------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Best First: And usually a sense of militarism ---------------------------------------------------------- So then Jiang Zemin and Kim Jong Mentally Ill (and the Late Stalin, Kruschev, Andropov, Mao, etc) are actually fascists, not communists? Again, you address the points on an individual basis and ignore the importance of the inter-relation between them, something the importance of was made clear of in my original post. So, a) you don’t have the wherewithal to comprehend what I am saying, and b) you are banging on about communism again which is irrelevant to the discussion. Concession accepted. ------------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Best First: So, as is plainly visable your claim that less government control is diametrically oppossed to all aspects of fasism, is, well, Bollocks. You may want to note for future reference that by exagerating you have exposed yourself to being easily proved wrong. No, it's NOT. You haven't proven any such thing. I didn't see it there. Yes I have. You claimed that not wanting state control was diametrically opposed to all aspects of fascism. I listed a number of aspects of fascism that were in no way affected by State control. You ingnored these points and started talking about communism, thus failing to address the points. Hence, you lose. You have not given me the source of your definition. I don't know if your definition is incomplete! So many of the definitions of REGULAR fascism ARE. I can't find the definition you used ANYWHERE on the net, so I'm assuming you got it out of a book. WHAT BOOK?! You are assuming wrong. If you knew much about the subject you would know that using dictionary definitions was a bad idea. Furthermore you would know that due to the evolving discourse on this subject using ‘a book’ would be a bad idea. My ideas on the subject are based on my university education, on which Kershaw and Thurlow were key influences, Holmes is also important for understanding domestic neo-facism in the UK. I would also suggest the following if you wish to understand the evolution of historians understanding of fascism. I suggest you follow the chronological order of the dates for the discourse to make sense. I include Mosley he offers up the most coherent fascist ideology – arguably because his manifesto was never distorted by the realities of power; a) Books 1. O. Mosley, The Greater Britain, Bungay, Suffolk, 1932. 2. R. Griffin, ed., Fascism, London, 1995. 3. E. Nolte, The Three Faces of Fascism, trans. Leila Vennewitz, London, 1965. 4. F. L. Carsten, The Rise of Fascism, London, 1967. 5. H.R. Kedwood, Fascism in Western Europe, London, 1969. 6. H.J Eysenck, The Uses and Abuses of Psychology, Aylesbury, 1953. 7. M. Kitchen, Fascsim, Basingstoke, 1976. 8. S. Gordon, Hitler, Germans and the “Jewish Question”, Chichester,1984. 9. R.Griffin, ed., International Fascism, London, 1998 b) Articles 1. G. Allardyce, ‘What Fascism is Not: Thoughts on the Deflation of a Concept’, American Historical Review, 1979 There will be a test. ------------------------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Best First: Less government control is only diametrically opposed to the authoritarian aspect of fascim if it is not accompanied by seeking more control in other ways - which this organisation is seeking to to by attempting to marginalise others political voices. They still have an authoritarian agenda of kinds. A pretty basic, dumb one, but its there. That's such simplistic reasoning that I'm LMAO right now. People have the right to free speech. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD!!! ---------------------------------------------------------- Simplistic or not – you once again fail to refute it. And can you seriously tell me that ‘not having a voice’ and ‘not being heard’ are not exactly the same thing? The point about protestwanker.com is that they are not about engaging the ideas of the people they disagree with – but about silencing them. They aim to break up protests (a distinctly un-american approach according to LN), and they talk of cutting people off from political discourse. They cannot operate within the realms of established political debate, so they have turned it into a ‘battle’. Im not saying there are not groups on the far left who do not also adopt this approach – but hopefully you will be starting to see that that is I-r-r-e-l-l-e-v-a-n-t to this discussion. That's where you libs seem to get mixed up. These guys aren't talking about silencing the opposition, they're talking about ignoring them. No authoritarianism required. Sure – hence the phrases “frothing at the mouth for battle” “we want to do everything we can to cordon them off from decent society.” On the site – not to mention the crap on the MB like ‘MaCarthy should have one a better job’ Non of which point to ‘ignoring’ the left as you want to believe. If you want to ignore someone you don’t start a website. You just ignore them. You CAN'T point to any sort of embracing of ANY " other authoritarianism" in protestwarrior. Ive done it several times. You have failed to refute it several times. You have also singularly failed to refute the point that authoritarianism does not have to be a centrail theme of neo facism Either thru military or religion. It's just NOT THERE. Thus, your argument, such as it is, is bollocks. Except I only ever used those as examples, so you have not even managed to comprehend what I was saying, so really, go back and try and understand the words that I have written, and then maybe I will consider allaying some importance to anything you are saying. It's funny to watch you go back to old arguments that I've already refuted and then cling to them as if they were still true. I fail to see how posting about communism, clutching at straws, ignoring points, posting irrelevant articles and repeating empty rhetoric would qualify. Im not entirely sure I have ever seen you effectively refute anything to be honest. With the one exception being the time Comps and I made a false accusation and subsequently apologised. But beyond that you seem incapable of actually engaging what people are saying – hence the frustration that surrounds trying to have a converstation about issues with you. I am well aware that some people don’t like the way I debate – but no one can realistically accuse me of ignoring key points, frequently employing red herrings or posting baseless rhetoric on a frequent basis. Maybe you should think about this. Altho im sure you won’t. Sigh. ----------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Best First: As i orignally stated; ------------------------------------------- Neo-fascism tended to be defined by the fact it still gets a few hits on the list, but by and large is more thuggish and simplistic either in mentality or method or both. Groups like Britain’s National Front and later the BNP would fit these categories. ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- That means NOTHING. Concession accepted. ----------------------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Best First: Im not and at no point have claimed that protestwanker.com is a picture of classical fascism, rather that they have the hall marks of neo fascism. I went to great lengths to stress this in my original post. If they don't subscribe to one aspect of classical fascism it does not mean they cannot be described as neo-fascists. This is why they are 'neo' fascists, and not fascists. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dude you're splitting hairs trying to weasel your way out of this one. Distinguishing fascism from neo-fascism is not spliting heirs, If you had any concept of the subject you are attempting to discuss you would realise that it is an extremely important distinction. Im not attempting to weasel out of anything – I am maintaining my original premise – a premise you have tried to distort by attempting to make this a discussion about fascism instead of neo-fascism, because you are incapable of disputing the point about neo-facism And using cheapness to make your opinion seem fact. Cheapness of overly broad definitions. The definition of neo-fascism is broad – that does not make it cheap. It’s a historical actuality. The fact that you can’t deal with it or refute it means you resort to insulting the definition. Concession accepted. You could put a monkey in a cabbage patch doll's clothing and it wouldn't make the monkey a cabbage patch doll. Indeed, and you can claim protestwanker are not neo-fascist in nature, wether they realise it or not, but that doesn’t alter the fact that they are. And you continue to defend them. So lets play this your way, shall we, lets play it as if neo-fascism and fascism are the same thing for a sec, so you defend these guys, any one else you want to defend? Hitler? Mosley? Mussolini? ----------------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Best First: So really, you are wrong on both counts. ----------------------------------------------------- No, I'm not "wrong," I AM DISPUTING YOUR OPINION. That's ALL you are relying on. YOUR OPINION. So are you. So is everyone here, So again, irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is the fact that my opinion is well informed, backed up by 4 years of personal study in this area, which draws on a further 70 years study in the area, and has remained focused for the course of this dicussion, on the subject of neo-fascism. Your opinion on the other hand is based on rhetoric, attempts to divert the debate in irrelevant directions and google searchs that are aimed specifically at supporting your rhetoric rather than understanding the subject at hand. Naturally you will deny this, but I suspect the truth of the matter is entirely apparent to anyone who is bothering to read this. ------------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Best First: Of course that is clear from my initial and highly definitive post on the subject, but then i am failing to take into account your amazing inability to absorb facts that run contrary to your warped perception of the world. Whose perception of the world is warped? ------------------------------------------------ Yours is. The fact that I disagree with you is not the point. Your ability to ignore peoples or deflect points that you cannot refute and then pat yourself on the back thinking you have out smarted people is. Frankly I get the impression you don’t even care that much about what you are discussing, you are just desperate to never ne wrong about anything ever. While I fully acknowledge that no one likes to be wrong , to be of a mentality that actually cannot process information that demonstrates that they are is insulting to the people who have wasted their time bothering to converse with you. And that’s what it is – a waste of time. Only about at most of what you posted has been a direct response to my points – the rest of it is irrelevant diversionary nonsense, either about classical fascism or communism, in an attempt to distract from the fact that you can’t effectively dispute my point about protestwanker.com being neo-facist in their outlook. ------------------------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Best First: They are neo-fascist tits. They would not want to believe it, you don't want to believe it, but its true. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't believe it because the reasoning you used to justify it is really stretching things, it's YOUR OPINION, and it's bollocks. Therefore, your "protest warrior = neo-fascism" argument = refuted. See, this is a perfect example of why you annoy people so much in ‘debate’. You have not addressed or proved anything. You just get to the end of your post, say my opinion is bollocks (with no basis) and then make the illogical leap (again with no basis) that because you have said its bollocks, you have refuted my opinion. Something you have singularly failed to do, with your persistant attempts to make this a discussion about classical fascism instead of neo-fascism. All you have achieved is to expose how little you know about the subject. Why not just save time and only post ‘I don't believe it because the reasoning you used to justify it is really stretching things, it's YOUR OPINION, and it's bollocks. Therefore, your "protest warrior = neo-fascism" argument = refuted. After all. That pretty much covers your entire post in terms of its effectiveness. ------------------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Best First: Haha. Actually my superior understanding of the subject and ability to employ reason over rhetoric vs your feeble debating skills = im still right and you are still defending a bunch of neo fascit gimps. Go you. ------------------------------------------------------------ Ahhhh so refreshing to see the superiority complex of the center and left of center... How can you infer any such thing from what one person has posted? That would like me sayig ‘Ahhh, so refreshing to see the inability to debate in a grown up manner of the far right’, based on you alone. Its generalised nonsense, which again exposes you to simple deconstruction. I suggest if you want to be taken in any way seriously in a debate with people who don’t see eye to eye with you, you stop it. There is no need to make these crass generalisations and it demonstrates that you are not bothered about engaging the points made, but once again resort to spouting mindless rhetoric. All you HAD was rhetoric! You are relying on a bunch of gimped up definitions that could fit anybody and anything. Again – at no point have you demonstrated that I have only employed rhetoric, or proved that my definitions were ‘gimped up’ (whatever that means) – so just saying that this is the case at the end of a long post, once more, adds no weight to your defense of these neo-fascist monkeys. Furthermore you still have failed to see that it is the inter-relation of the listed aspecsts of fascism that is important, not the fact that on an individual basis they can be applied to other types of political ‘ideology’ (a term I use loosley in relation to neo-fascism). So again, you illustrate that you have not even grasped the point, let alone refuted it. Maybe if you concentrated on what I was saying instead of trying to ignore it and turn this into a discussion about how communism is bad as well you might get somewhere. Altho I apologise in advance to Satan for the drop in temperature when this happens. ------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Best First: Nice snip of an historical article that had nothing to do with your (lack of) a point by the way. Really helped back up your (lack of a) point. "Oh and heres an article that agrees with me. Its in a newspaper so it must be true! " Genius! Ever thought about doing a papmhlet called 'HOW NOT TO DEBATE IN 10 EASY STEPS' -? Im pretty sure it would be the definitive work on the subject. Sheesh. ---------------------------------------------------------- No, that's your project. You illustrate it very nicely yourself. Great come back. No really. ‘im not you are’ – amaaaazing retort. In all seriousness Sheba, if you actually care about what you are saying, I suggest that you take some of my criticisms to heart, because as it is, no-one from the other side of the political spectrum is taking you remotely seriously. And why should they, when you offer them no such courtesy? Id like to say I bear some optimism for your response to this, but the fact is I suspect that it won’t even be worth replying to. Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-21-2003 at 09:51 AM:
and the boy wins another beer
Posted by Blacksword on 04-21-2003 at 02:57 PM:
I'd say the man deserves a keg for that effort. A beer would about cover the appolgy to Satan remark. Though we really wouldn't want to damage that brain too much.
Seriously Sheba, Besty's said pretty muc why you aren't regarded with any seriousness on these issues. Polish up your debating skills (in some areas you just need to aquire some) and then we might start taking you seriously. You methodology a lot more than your message is the reason why we ignore your points. I'm rather diametrically opposed to the majority of what you say but I 've heard it said a lot better ina fashion where I can actaully see a line of reasoning. That's when I actually look with any kind of appraisal at the points being raised. You only hurt your cause when you open your mouth right now so I suggest a bit more thought before you open it again. Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-21-2003 at 03:52 PM:
I am not buying him a whole keg!!!
Tell you what- you guys pool together and get the refreshments and ill hire the local church hall and get it decorated for him. then we got to pretend we've not noticed his post so he ends up turning up all sulky and we jump out and shout 'surprise!' Posted by Sheba on 04-22-2003 at 02:47 PM:
Save your keg pennies, you're about to be wiped out. I've repeated everything Best First said to the guys on the protestwarrior forum and one of them is coming over here to answer Best First point for point. The guy was very eager to. Since nobody can explain a person's beliefs better than the person himself that believes it, I'm gonna leave it to the person to answer.
But as an aside, I find it highly illogical to accuse an organization that is ANTI-fascist as being neofascist. That's like accusing an anti-communist of being communist. Posted by Computron on 04-22-2003 at 02:53 PM:
I can't wait for the liberal bashing, the strawmen fallacies, the red herrings and the ad hominems!
Yay! Bring it on Protestwankers.  I'm a left-wing bastard. Note: If you can't sense the humor behind this then you are truly lost to right-wing extremism... Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-22-2003 at 03:06 PM:
quote:bah! to hell with that lefties- ive decided to just be a communist. who's with me? i hope i can count on you compy Posted by impactor returns on 04-22-2003 at 03:18 PM:
I just have to see that protest blokey come over here. i cant wait, honestly.
Posted by MaximusFan on 04-22-2003 at 05:04 PM:
Millions died to defeat the fascist menace during WWII. Sheba, how dare you support Protestwankers.com anyway? Best First has exhaustively shown why they are indeed neo-fascist filth. What do you think will happen when they get here? Have a tea party? Predictable course of events:
1)Protestwanker makes baseless assumptions and attacks Best First using random out of context quotations. 2) Best First rips Protestwankers' reasoning apart. 3) Repeat steps 1 and 2 ad infinitum. 4) Protestwanker drags other buddies here and starts flaming/trolling the board. Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-22-2003 at 05:45 PM:
Sheba is playing a game.
She doesnt understand precisely WHO she is dealing with in these protestwarrior characters. She thinks she is being clever, and winning out against us by having the last word. Sheba has not considered the consequences of badmouthing us all to a fascist website and tasking them to come here and 'slam down' on us. I believe those were the precise words she used. Posted by Blacksword on 04-22-2003 at 06:03 PM:
But seriously, does Sheba seem like someone who will ever consider the consequences of her actions? Seriously sweetie you really need to get over this mania you have with being right, on everything, and go deal with the serious inferiority complex it's covering. I might be wrong but as a general rule loud mouthed people generally are covering up for something. As to your prostestwanker buddies, of course they are going to deny being neo-facists, since nobody in their right mind would ever admit to it in public these days. I'll listen, but if he/she shows the same debating skills you have showed off don't expect us to take what is said seriously.
Posted by Computron on 04-22-2003 at 11:08 PM:
quote:You call what Alan posted at ProtestWanker a awe-inspiring post of logic? Good heavens I refuted him soundly and utterly. http://www.protestwarrior.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=6044#6044 Posted by Sir Auros on 04-22-2003 at 11:10 PM:
If it were legal for me to kill...there'd be one less worthless leech in Canada...
Posted by impactor returns on 04-22-2003 at 11:20 PM:
SOundly refuted in every respect Compy.
Im amazed at the lack of logic on show, and the way Transfans posters were just quoted out of context. its laughable. And im just saddned by Sheba. i pity you. Posted by Pretender Bumblebee on 04-22-2003 at 11:27 PM:
Well said Computron.
I have always supported free speach both pro and con war and Liberal and Conservative and in between but to make Sheeba out like some hero for her extreme views and then to just take things totaly out of context like that in thier "rebutle" is laughable at best. Its just a shame that both sides can't just accept that everyone has a differnet view on things and thats not a bad thing, thats what makes us human. Would they like everyone to think the same and act the same and believe in the same things? I sure hope not as that would be much worse then any Dictatorship society. In that society they have no choices, but if we were all the same life would be pointless. Thank goodness we do all have our own minds and thoughts and beliefs for I fear the day that something like being able to have your own differing thoughts is no longer part of society. Posted by Blacksword on 04-23-2003 at 12:43 AM:
Do you seriously think that's any kind of rubuttal Sheba? That guy is worse than you. And is he five years old, he sure talks like a child.
quote:Absolutely brilliant, and this is an example of one of your saviours of western society? He sounds like he should be in the sandbox playing with his plastic soldiers. quote: and more brilliance! The blatant agressive militancy of this guy is enough to put up my hackles. The guy needs a serious reality check. You've gone and seriously hurt yourself more Sheba. You slander our board to (if we are to base our judgement of the group on one of it's leaders, not totally fair but heck Alan hardly was) a bunch of semi-literate troglodites and you expect anyone here to give you a shed of consideration? You're a real piece of work aren't you Sheba? I suggest you do some serious growing up girlie before you get up the gall to come back and post here again. Posted by Sir Auros on 04-23-2003 at 12:52 AM:
quote:The funny thing is that she's 30 years old...actually the funniER thing is that she's 30 years old, lives at home, and can't work because of her "disability" (Asberger's Syndrome) despite plenty of people with the same disability being able to work in the real world...but that's because of LIBERAL-created programs. And then what about when her parents die? Is she going to leech off of the government too? Will she still complain about all the money liberals are handing out to people like her? Posted by Redstreak on 04-23-2003 at 12:53 AM:
Well Sheba, you've crossed that line. This is so toroughly dispicable I don't even know where to begin. You can neither fight your own battles, nor keep them on one place, instead you do this...it just outright disgusts me.
You have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that your argumentative skills mirror those of a five year old, and your actions in this matter are highly contemptable. You have proven to me, and I think everyone here now, that you have lost this argument, that you have no hope of winning it, and that you are not welcome here anymore(if you're not banned already I'll be surprised). So I say this, once and for all, on behalf of everyone here...  Boo, and I might add, ya. So long, and thanks for all the fish. You will not be missed here. Posted by Computron on 04-23-2003 at 01:45 AM:
I suggest you save copies of that thread since they are deleting/editing posts as they see fit. I do believe Auros's latest post will be deleted soon as it really hits em hard.
Auros: I love how you guys are editing and deleting Computron's posts. Not only did you manipulate the excepts from that thread to benefit your own frightfully skewed world-view, but you deleted a post where he accuses you of deleting his posts... In addition to the points he's put forth: 1-Sheba did not go to Transfans on any sort of "mission" she's been there for the past two years (as Computron said) putting forth whatever argument she thinks will annoy people the most. 2-Transfans is not a "leftist" website, it's a TRANSFORMERS FANSITE. You chose to focus solely on the left-wing posters for the purposes of manipulating the facts in your favor. 3-Most of the posters at Transfans (and ALL of the people arguing with Sheba against your site) are over the ages of 20 and have college educations. Your Sheba however, has a high-school education and often enjoys pretending she's a cat and posting about sexual fantasies she has about Transformers. She's really not the best Transformer fan you could put your support behind, but given that the other fans who happen to be Republican or conservative have enough sense to not support a racist site like this, I suppose you had limited options. 4-This site is so racist it makes me sick. It's clear that you hate Islam, and I'd like to know what Mr. Limbaugh would think had he known exactly how you people feel on the matter. The entire Islamic world is not a terrorist breeding ground. The factions of Islam that do support such acts have bastardized the religion to the point that it's Islam in name only. It's people like you who ruin the lives of thousands of Muslims in this country. Posted by Sir Auros on 04-23-2003 at 01:58 AM:
Yes, yes, I am the man, I'm well aware.
Seriously, I'd advocate defending Transfans' honor over there for you lot who've gone against Sheba (and won ), but you don't have the safeguards we have to prevent massive idiot troll invasions...Posted by Best First on 04-23-2003 at 03:36 AM:
Jesus, i guess i should have seen this coming.
quote:As an aside, while i do not want to see these muppets invading Transfans, id just like to point out that the moment they started editing Comp's and SA's posts, they lost all credibility. that, and when they tried to use refutes like this; ----------------------------------------- Quote: Because they deal in conspiracy; “We thought it would be a great opportunity to see the left in its unalloyed perversity. The left is very skillful when it comes to hiding their true beliefs.” That statement about the Left is not conspiracy theory, it is open fact. ------------------------------------------- Hence the abudence of these facts in your refute. Good one fella's. Im quaking in my commie ( ) boots.Furthermore Sheba, if Transfans suffers because of your inability to lose an arguement (or, to be more accurate, your inability to accept you have lost an arguement, your ability to lose them is well documented), i will hold you personally responsible. Maybe if i started a topic slagging off the KKK you could point them in Transfans direction as well. Sigh. Posted by Sir Auros on 04-23-2003 at 03:40 AM:
Continue checking that thread BF...it'll probably get even sadder tomorrow when more people are on...
Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-23-2003 at 04:55 AM:
"It was Tabaqui the jackal, the dishlicker, and the wolves of India despise Tabaqui because he runs about spreading lies and making mischief."
~Kipling, 'Mowgli's Brothers' Of course neither you, Sheba, nor your friends would recognise the quote (which was directed at you, my dear) as books and learning are the natural enemy of all fascist and communist regimes. Posted by Blacksword on 04-23-2003 at 07:21 AM:
There's a r reason why Hitler went after the intellectuals and started Burning books. Communist states also control what people can read. Considering that books are the enemy's of the enemies of freedom, to use a term that is ever so locved these days, it should be your friend, not leftie, propaganda. And as a general rule those who seek to restrict the opinions of others and are agaisnt higher education do tend to be the enemy of your freedom.
Oh and Auros, you gotta be kidding me! She's 30! Well that would explain the PET fixation (Canadian political thing from the Trudeau years). Seriously, I would not have put her over 18, and the rest, well it clarifies a few things. Posted by Best First on 04-23-2003 at 07:55 AM:
Cool it on the personal stuff guys - its not neccss to make your point.
edit - i just noticed they made a point of highlighting my typo's. Now if that isnt the hallmark of someone keen to, er, smite the ideas of the enemy with the mighty rocket launcher of reasoning and logic, i don't know what is. [/sarcasm] "You are a neo-fascist, and here is exhaustive reasoning as to why" "Yes, but you missed the apostrophe from "it's". I win! I have poleaxed you with the squirrel of righteousness!" Posted by Computron on 04-23-2003 at 08:13 AM:
You have mail BF!
Posted by Blacksword on 04-23-2003 at 08:23 AM:
Didn't mean to be personal there Besty.I seriously though of her as around 18 or as an immature 20 something at most, based on the way she conducts her self. Though with regards to the rest I should have discussed it with Auros in private. I appologise.
So what the heck were we talking about before Sheba derailed us? Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-23-2003 at 08:33 AM:
im sorry too...
she just irritates me so much... Posted by Nightbeat on 04-23-2003 at 08:46 AM:
Great Googlimoogli.......
Hussein's was the only military dictatorship that I know of in the Middle East. But I can see why they seem to be gaining converts(if they indeed are)(I'm talking about ProtestWarrior.com here). They use fear, terror, and people's lack of worldly understanding. Mix in a little disinformation, blame it all on the left-wingers, and they could be completely effective. On the up side, they're so completely over the top, that only the extreme right will agree with them, leaving those of us who are either middle of the road or not in their extremity wondering where in the smegging hell they get their info. I'm not even sure that Limbaugh is that far over the top(haven't actually heard his show since the Clinton administration, so I can't really be sure). Why in the world would they make Islam sound like that? All they're doing is fostering hate, and we've got enough of that right now. These are the same kinds of people who would start witch hunts for the fun of it, the same people ol' Joe McCarthy had working for him. I mean, "They believe something that we don't! They must be evil!!!!!" just doesn't work as an argument. So what say we use this as a rallying point, hmm? Use their standards against them. I'll start. "THE PEOPLE AT PROTESTWARRIOR.COM ARE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF HATE-MONGERING, PAT ROBERTSON LOVING, JIMMY SWAGGART WORSHIPPING JIM BAKER WANNA-BES WHO NEED TO MOVE OUT OF THEIR PARENT'S BASEMENTS AND GET LIVES!!!!" Now, we use them as the standard and label all people who are conservative as being in their same camp, then be unassailable in our inherent smugness. Then sit back and watch the fur fly. Bloody gimboids..... The above, of course, is all my own opinion. Posted by impactor returns on 04-23-2003 at 08:59 AM:
Great posting ppl!
Last night when i became aware of this traversty of freedom of speech i was shocked and anoyed. now i am proud that 'our' board here supports proper 'Protest' and real views stapled together with meaningfull constructive disscussion. I see that a place like Protest wankers only excepts 1 view, with no questions allowed, no alternate view accepted. that is a sad and frieghtining world. Im not great with my words so i have kept out of it, and let the real Quote masters go to work in there. and i applaud you all. Im no being biesed. but honestly. if i was a blank slate, with no opinion of my own, and was reading at PW. i know that these 'mere kids' from a Transformers forum had just ripped apart the now stupidly obvious views of the ppl at PW. Well done Transfans! Posted by Nightbeat on 04-23-2003 at 09:01 AM:
Sorry to double post here, but.... YAY! Back on topic!
Impy's right. Hussein had to go. Although I'm hoping that the guy who's going there to be in interim charge isn't actually going to try to convert them. I mean, we're not talking the "godless heathens" of the days of colonization(not that they actually were godless, but they didn't have that European polish), but people who are members of a religion that is almost as old as Christianity(technically, it's an offshoot. But then, Christianity's an offshoot of Judaisim). But if this mook does drop the religious ball, our already shaky MidEast relations could blow up in our faces. Posted by Blacksword on 04-23-2003 at 09:11 AM:
Hey we watch and wait for the magical disappearing and/or edited posts. Mine is probably too long for General "Patriot Missles of Truth" to take in one sitting. I'll probably end up worshiping Karl Marx and be an ardent Communist in an hour or so.
Posted by Redstreak on 04-23-2003 at 09:13 AM:
I got bored so I found Sheba's profile and a another interesting post she put up...
http://www.protestwarrior.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=5586&highlight=#5586 Posted by Blacksword on 04-23-2003 at 09:14 AM:
Well the guy already has ties to the extreme right wing in Israel and has applauded teh way Sharon's government have handled the Palestinian uprisings of the last few years. So consider the ball already dropped.
I appologise for the double post, but Karl, you posted just before I finished my last one. Bastard. Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-23-2003 at 09:21 AM:
muha!
Posted by Nightbeat on 04-23-2003 at 09:25 AM:
Ah, well. 'Twas a nice life, it was. I think I'll go and hide.......
Although something tells me Sharon's not looking for conversion of the Muslims here..... Posted by impactor returns on 04-23-2003 at 09:25 AM:
 "I support protest wankers!" Posted by Best First on 04-23-2003 at 10:25 AM:
surely that should be;
quote:All that said - if we are going to prove our worth, i suggest we don't descend to their level and get on with this topic, transfans, and our lives in general. As i said, they need an enemey to breath. Moving on; Nightbeat - i agree that it would be a distinct mistake to try and convert the Iraqi's. The trick is allowing the people to build their own culture. Of course that leaves scopef ro manipulation from exisiting or older power centres. Its not easy. Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-23-2003 at 11:15 AM:
bah. trust you to be so sensible besty!
Posted by Sir Auros on 04-23-2003 at 11:38 AM:
I'm very proud of you all.
Posted by Blacksword on 04-23-2003 at 11:49 AM:
I really hope they learned from the screw ups in Yugoslavia because, the situations are frighteningly parallel. Three mutually hostile peoples, who are concentrated in some regions, highly mixed in others suddnely let loose fromthe control of a highly controlling ruler. Nothing has happened yet, but the cracks are showing and I cane see the US troops being the major factor keeping the whole thin from flying apart. Then you have Turkey and Iran as further complicating factors (though ow much Iran is influencing the Iraqi Shi'ites is anybody's guess, but as far as I know Iraqi Shi'ites seem fairly nationalistic), and the fact that it is increasingly likely that we're going to see four permanent US military bases in Iraq and a government that is likely to be almost entirely reliant on the US for its power.
Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 04-23-2003 at 03:13 PM:
At the moment the majority of Iraqis (or at lest the most vocal) seem to be calling for an Islamic government. Hopefully this does not mean along the lines of Iran. I can't see the US being in favour of strongly religious leaders, and I can't see the Iraqi people accepting anything else. I get the feeling that the real war may not even have begun yet, and that when it does it's going to be messy, bloody and even more morally ambiguous than the last one.
I just hope that I'm wrong about this. Posted by Best First on 04-23-2003 at 03:29 PM:
quote:I can. Oh! You mean that religion... Seriously - its the essential 'problem' with democracy - people have the right to vote it away. Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 04-23-2003 at 03:33 PM:
quote:Quite agree, but the thing I'm really worried about is that the US wont be willing to let the Iraqis vote it away. It's worth remebering that previous examples of 'democracies' that the US has supported have included dictatoria regimes. I could quite easily see them imposing a leader on the Iraqi people, in which case we could have the Saddam problem all over again, only worse. Posted by Sheba on 04-23-2003 at 03:38 PM:
quote:The hell do you mean, fight my own battles? Best First slandered a site and one of the Admins there wanted to dispute it. It's easier for a person to defend themselves than for me to do it for them. quote: WTF exactly is "contemptible" here?! I think what's contemptible is you guys going over there and NOT making your point, and then coming back over here and claiming victory. Whose arguing skills are childish level? Definitely Sir Auros' if nobody else. Some people get away with mashing definitions to justify themselves. What I think is that Best First concocted this "neofascist" idea because it is the ONLY way he thought of that would really push everybody's buttons and cause discreditment INSTANTLY without any further debate. Neofascism is A VERY SERIOUS CHARGE. It's bordering on libel. Because, basically what he did was the equivalent of taking a description of an animal that includes ONLY the nose, eyes, ears, fur, four paws, and mouth, and insisting that the animal described is a bunny rabbit because they studied under the foremost experts on bunny rabbits--even though by the information given, the animal being described could just as easily be a CAT. That's the problem I had with BF's reasoning. And hilariously enough, Compy fed off it instead of explaining specifically what he thought separate from what BF posted. And it's odd I think, that Stuart Denyer hasn't weighed in on all this yet. I thought for sure someone woulda summoned him to help them... NOBODY that went to that site to argue ever pointed out exactly how they thought protestwarrior is "neofascist." That sort of got lost in the namecalling. In all Compy's rhetoric not even he got around to elaborating on that. He was busy with his own red herrings, arguing about minutia. Nowhere did he give ANY evidence that the site was neofascist. Boo, and I might add, ya. So long, and thanks for all the fish. You will not be missed here. Dude.  Posted by Computron on 04-23-2003 at 03:46 PM:
Wow Sheba...that was...how shall I say...dumb?
Yes that's the word I'm looking for. All the info as to why protestwanker.com is neo-fascist is present IN THIS VERY THREAD IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES. Stop bitching about it. Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-23-2003 at 03:55 PM:
The hell do you mean, fight my own battles? Best First slandered a site and one of the Admins there wanted to dispute it. It's easier for a person to defend themselves than for me to do it for them.
So thats why you spent all those posts defending them? I would also point out that slander relies on someone saying something untrue... I have yet to see Besty say anything untrue. WTF exactly is "contemptible" here?! That you are defending a fascist website, turning us into the bad guys and making them out to be the injured party. I think what's contemptible is you guys going over there and NOT making your point, How on earth is it possible to counter that? The point has been made to them and to you at least 10 times now. You're arguing that the cat is white when everyone can see its black. and then coming back over here and claiming victory. Whose arguing skills are childish level? Well those who cannot understand something when it is explained to them several times do leap to mind... you have yet to actually find an argument to dispute Best First's definition of neo-fascism, you've just repeated 'government control is an element of fascism' when NEO-fascism is the accusation. Definitely Sir Auros' if nobody else. Some people get away with mashing definitions to justify themselves. Any chance of a quote for those who have not seen this? What I think is that Best First concocted this "neofascist" idea because it is the ONLY way he thought of that would really push everybody's buttons and cause discreditment INSTANTLY without any further debate. Now that is slander. Neofascism is A VERY SERIOUS CHARGE. It's bordering on libel. And you have yet to disprove the definition of neofascism, only FASCISM which is not what they are being accused of. Best First has made a compelling case as to why these people are not the best individuals for you to be hanging around with- whether you do so or not is your own business. However you have yet to produce a single compelling argument to make anybody believe they are well-meaning individuals. Because, basically what he did was the equivalent of taking a description of an animal that includes ONLY the nose, eyes, ears, fur, four paws, and mouth, and insisting that the animal described is a bunny rabbit because they studied under the foremost experts on bunny rabbits--even though by the information given, the animal being described could just as easily be a CAT. Best First gave a very accurate description which included certain broad aspects because NeoFascism is a broad topic. There is more than one breed of rabbit to describe, but they are all rabbits. That's the problem I had with BF's reasoning. And hilariously enough, Compy fed off it instead of explaining specifically what he thought separate from what BF posted. Because Besty is RIGHT. ive made several contributions but have been corrected myself in some mistakes- i also didnt make the correct distinction between fascism and neo-fascism, but i didnt labour my points because i can accept being wrong. And it's odd I think, that Stuart Denyer hasn't weighed in on all this yet. I thought for sure someone woulda summoned him to help them... You are the one yet to make your case effectively. Nobody here seems to need help. NOBODY that went to that site to argue ever pointed out exactly how they thought protestwarrior is "neofascist." I think you'll find you went to that site to prove you had nuked some snivveling lefties and WE went there to prove it was not true on all counts. Sheba may we talk about Iraq now? Posted by Sheba on 04-23-2003 at 04:23 PM:
quote:Dude aren't you supposed to be ABOVE ad hominem bullcrap? What a bunch of ignorant pap. I did not read "Mowgli's Brothers", but that's because I don't have the book. If I had it I probably would read it. This whole idea that I'm against book learning is soooooo much s***e, and it's the most childish argument from you EVER. I am no fascist (nor am I a neofascist), especially considering I absolutely CAN'T STOP reading. I have read books of all kinds. Even read some of Michael Moore's dumbass book. Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-23-2003 at 04:30 PM:
quote:im above nothing. i suffer from the same faults as everyone else in this world. for what its worth i appologised for it as personal comments have no place here, but hey- you have no respect for me or my opinions so i see no real reason to have respect for you. Posted by Sheba on 04-23-2003 at 04:40 PM:
quote:The hell do you mean, I don't respect your opinions? Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-23-2003 at 04:46 PM:
youve forgotten that whole little religious debate over my PRIVATE prayer? where because i belong to one religion and you another you decided i needed 'correcting' and spent many many posts winding me up and generally upsetting me?
I've been waiting for some payback. So while it makes me a pretty low person, to be honest I feel glad that I've been able to wind you up like you did to me. what can i say? im just a bounty hunter at heart... Posted by Best First on 04-23-2003 at 04:53 PM:
This is such a pile of BS. Having utterly failed to refute my points, Sheba a) Tries to ignore them by attempts at diverting the conversation b) Slags me off on other message boards, c) Avoids addressing them by spreading the discussion to another message board What I think is that Best First concocted this "neofascist" idea because it is the ONLY way he thought of that would really push everybody's buttons and cause discreditment INSTANTLY without any further debate. d) Attempts to undermine my points by slandering them. Without justification as usual. Nice ‘bushism’ in ‘discreditment’ by the way. Neofascism is A VERY SERIOUS CHARGE Your damn right it is. And despite your pathetic claims otherwise its not one I make lightly. I’ve proven my case using me education, logicand what is probably a singular expertise on the subject in the case of this board (no offense to anyone else). It's bordering on libel. Yeah, except its TRUE Because, basically what he did was the equivalent of taking a description of an animal that includes ONLY the nose, eyes, ears, fur, four paws, and mouth, and insisting that the animal described is a bunny rabbit because they studied under the foremost experts on bunny rabbits--even though by the information given, the animal being described could just as easily be a CAT. EXcept you miss (or rather avoid) the point that neo-fasicism is a fairly borad definition. You can keep saying things like this – but seeing as how the one thing you can’t do is effectively counter, or in most cases even address my points, its not going to ring any more true here than it did 10 posts ago. You can say ‘You are wrong’ a million times but seeing as you can’t back it up with fact or logic it remains, like most things you post, just a bunch of meaningless words. Of course its in your interests as it pushes the actual points of the debate, the ones you can’t cope with, further into the distance. That's the problem I had with BF's reasoning. that and the fact that a) you don’t understand the subject at hand b) Can’t cope with logic c) Will never ever admit when you are wrong And hilariously enough, Compy fed off it instead of explaining specifically what he thought separate from what BF posted. you can keep saying things like this – but seeing as how the one thing you can’t do is effectively counter, or in most cases even address my points, its not going to ring any more true here than it did 10 posts ago. You can say ‘You are wrong’ a million times but seeing as you can’t back it up with fact or logic it remains, like most things you post, just a bunch of meaningless words. Of course its in your interests as it pushes the actual points of the debate, the ones you can’t cope with, further into the distance. And it's odd I think, that Stuart Denyer hasn't weighed in on all this yet. I thought for sure someone woulda summoned him to help them... Remember kids, it’s the left that deal in conspiracy theories... NOBODY that went to that site to argue ever pointed out exactly how they thought protestwarrior is "neofascist." That sort of got lost in the namecalling. In all Compy's rhetoric not even he got around to elaborating on that. He was busy with his own red herrings, arguing about minutia. Nowhere did he give ANY evidence that the site was neofascist. They don’t need to. Its been done here, several times, exhaustively. Still, I think you will find that the BS and the namecalling and the talking like a child ‘smite your enemy with the mobile phone of patriotism’ guff has tended to be the province of the native posters. Of course you ignore this, post what you want to see and carry on into oblivion. I also note that arguing the minutia has now become a crime in debate, couldn’t be because you can’t cope with the points being made could it? Of course not. And I notice that your hero that was going to come over here and pick up the anti-logic baton that you appear to have dropped hasn’t shown up. Yet apparently the fact that I have not gone over there means that I am a coward. Frankly, the thing that really ****’s me off is the fact that you can’t stand on your own two feet in this debate Sheba. During the course of this discussion I have on more than one occasion chided people for making things personal in your direction, even tho they were often supporting me, I have made time and effort to address your points in a constructive effective manner, and I have gone away and pulled back references when challenged to do so, I have offered genuine advice with regard to the company you keep, and I have conceded where I thought your point was fair (the use of the term ‘Aryan’ and the point about Karl’s dictionary definition). In response, you have slagged me off on other MB’s, you have evaded or ignored my the points, you have posted irrelevant nonsense, and you have gone running to the subject of the discussion and acted like that in any way vindicates the above. The fact is, when discussing something, there is no need whatsoever for the subject of the discussion to be present – this is an absurd diversionary notion, if I was discussing Tony Blair would he have to be here? No. If I was discussing the Catholic Church would the Pope have to be here? No. This is just another pathetic, empty, diversionary tactic. Frankly, thanks to your inability to act like a grown up, this has turned into a farce. So, thanks for insulting the effort I have put into the post, thanks for insulting my education, thanks for ignoring the vast majority of what I posted, thanks for slagging me off on other message boards, thanks for showing me non of the courtesy or respect I have tried to show you and most of all, thanks for wasting my time. Unfortunately for me I don’t have their morals so I can’t go back and edit your posts to make me look good. On the plus side, its not really necessary, eh? I hope you and your neo-fascist buddies are very happy together. THE END. Posted by Sheba on 04-23-2003 at 04:54 PM:
quote:That was a misunderstanding. quote:yup, immaturity... Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-23-2003 at 04:55 PM:
quote:damn right. i live to settle old scores. EDIT- and besty, in all honesty you have done more than most respectable people would do (and a damn sight more than I would do) to try and keep this debate within the realms of logic and reason. i also learnt quite a bit ill have to start a debate about Unix or Physics to pass on some of my knowledge to you Nobody could ask more of you. Maybe I will look into that keg of beer Posted by Computron on 04-23-2003 at 05:00 PM:
quote:Damn straight. Posted by Sheba on 04-23-2003 at 06:07 PM:
quote: The following Middle Eastern Countries are NON DEMOCRATIC: Syria (Ba'athist party similar to Saddam) Saudi Arabia (royal family) United Arab Emirates Yemen Bahrain Jordan (king) Iran isn't technically part of the middle east, but it's right next door and they have their Ayatollahs. Which they are now thoroughly fed up with.... Heck, ONLY Turkey has any semblance now of democracy in terms of Muslim-run countries in that region. quote: What exactly is over the top? quote: That's because that ISN'T their argument. Strawman. They are opposed to the MILITANT WHACKO EXTREMIST factions of Islam that tend to dominate the GOVERNMENTS of those countries. quote:....*sigh* Read the debate again man.... Posted by Redstreak on 04-23-2003 at 06:19 PM:
*Bashes head into keyboard*
Sheba? The point. Point? Sheba. I think you two should meet. Posted by Sheba on 04-23-2003 at 06:39 PM:
quote: Well you slagged them pretty good yourself. What I think is that Best First concocted this "neofascist" idea because it is the ONLY way he thought of that would really push everybody's buttons and cause discreditment INSTANTLY without any further debate. d) Attempts to undermine my points by slandering them. Without justification as usual. Nice ‘bushism’ in ‘discreditment’ by the way. Neofascism is A VERY SERIOUS CHARGE quote: Your education...which taught you plastic definitions that can be molded and shaped to whatever you want them to be. You're constantly going on about your education, and how 'superior' it makes you, and not once did you use it to answer any of my questions. My whole point is that your education was biased. I didn't see you use ANY logic. You are WRONG about how the definitions allegedly fit protestwarrior. You totally misunderstand everything they say, and are seeing only what you want to see. It's bordering on libel. quote: You have not shown definitively that it is. Incidentally, in Canada if you call somebody something like that, it doesn't matter if it's true. You can be arrested. Because, basically what he did was the equivalent of taking a description of an animal that includes ONLY the nose, eyes, ears, fur, four paws, and mouth, and insisting that the animal described is a bunny rabbit because they studied under the foremost experts on bunny rabbits--even though by the information given, the animal being described could just as easily be a CAT. quote: ROFLMFAO Ho ho ho! It's precisely the fact that it IS so broad that I HAVEN'T missed! I've been constantly complaining (and you seem to HAVE MISSED THAT) that your definitions, including those of neofascism, are horribly broad and prone to inaccuracy! And being as it's so broad, it is bollocks. If you can't properly identify something because you have SO LITTLE to go by, then the definition is bollocks. If by a definition you CANNOT logically differentiate between an extremist (neofascist) and a regular normal non-extremist Conservative, then the problem IS with the DEFINITION! quote:I was showing you exactly what I thought was wrong, I wasn't merely going "you are wrong"! I was pointing out how the definitions are bollocks! At no point did you justify the reasoning behind the definitions. You could at least have done THAT, considering your fancy education. That's the problem I had with BF's reasoning. quote: Like hell I don't. YOU have a problem understanding that I have a problem with how you get from point a to point b. quote: WHAT LOGIC??? There is NO Logic in asserting with amazing "certainty" that a bunny rabbit is a bunny rabbit, when you only have enough information to tell you that it's an animal, it's alive, furry, and can see, hear, eat, and run! quote: Because you're the one that's wrong. And hilariously enough, Compy fed off it instead of explaining specifically what he thought separate from what BF posted. quote: What I can't cope with is you evading your reasons for justifying the definitions as they stand. quote: ROFLMAO. That's nothing to do with conspiracy. That's to do with the fact that Denyer is an intellectual person and might find some interest in this debate, and I'm surprised nobody seems to have alerted him to it. That's all. NOBODY that went to that site to argue ever pointed out exactly how they thought protestwarrior is "neofascist." That sort of got lost in the namecalling. In all Compy's rhetoric not even he got around to elaborating on that. He was busy with his own red herrings, arguing about minutia. Nowhere did he give ANY evidence that the site was neofascist. quote: What you are ignoring is that your reasoning is, was, and always has been on this subject, BOLLOCKS. And lots of them. Arguing minutia is a crime only in that Compy always harps about red herrings, and proceeds to engage in throwing them around himself. You cannot comprehend the following: -tongue-in-cheek sayings over there. -your own arguments being turned around on you -political satire, if it's from the "right" My god, it's like if you heard someone who's kinda peeved at a person and goes 'I'm going to kill that guy' and you take him SERIOUSLY, even though the person had NO INTENTION of killing the person at all. That's why I find your reasoning (and Compy's btw) absolutely insane. quote: I don't know. I guess he was going to do it over there. He didn't actually say he was coming over here, he just said he wanted to dispute you. I assumed he was coming over here. I think we got our wires crossed in the PM. quote: Well I tried man, I freaking tried. It's not my debate really, since the subject at issue is protestwarrior and not me. Why should I not pass it along to them for them to take up? They know better than I what they actually think. So it's not illogical for me to have passed it along, since they are the subject at hand. This is exhausting and I was taking a bit of a break. quote: Well all that is very nice and good, but you were the one that spoke nastily of protestwarrior. You have only yourself to blame for that. Nothing I've posted on this subject is irrelevant; it's VERY relevant because it cuts to the heart of this whole matter: WHO decided what the definition[s] of fascism and neofascism were, and how did they come to it? And why is a painfully BROAD definition being used, when very SPECIFIC definitions are used for the extreme on the 'other side', that is, Communism? quote: No need, maybe. BUT it's not diversionary! It is involving the people so they can actually say what they think. It forces the people making the accusations to confront their accuser. Which is perfectly proper. Like I said before, nobody can elaborate on what they actually think than the person that's being attacked. quote: Selective effort quote: Well it's not your fault you got taught what you got taught. quote: No, YOU ignored what I posted. You made NO attempt to answer what I asked. quote: Well don't complain to me if the disrespect (I mean really, calling them twats and so forth... ) you dished out to them came back to bite you in the ass.quote: I appreciate the respect you've shown me, but it's kind of empty now, considering the way you disrespected the protestwarrior people. quote: I don't know what they edited. quote: Posted by Best First on 04-23-2003 at 07:04 PM:
quote:No! I didnt do that you did! YOU SO DID THAT! I have SAID IT and it is true! And what about THE BORG? They are nasty, ARENT they? Ha! Like Nazis are nasty. How do you explain that? I read A BOOK once. It was in a newspaper which said it WAS GOOD and must BE TRUE. The book said you are wrong. So what YOU ARE saying is rubbish = refuted. HAHAHAHAHAAAA. Posted by Papa Snarl on 04-23-2003 at 07:12 PM:
LMFAO!
GIVE ME JUICE! Posted by impactor returns on 04-23-2003 at 07:16 PM:
Sheba. im such a fence sitter, but your not making any sense. time and time again, u are proven wrong, no offence but you keep quoting, and then making no logicall argument. i dont understand what you are trying to say. and i think your contribution is just getting frankly silly.
Can u please keep this on topic, make a base for proper logic, and concede when somone has totaly out-proven you. Its becoming sad. Posted by Sheba on 04-23-2003 at 07:25 PM:
quote:It's not that I'm proven wrong, it's that you're believing Besters over me. As we alllllll know, "experts" are NEVER wrong... What's so illogical about pointing out the DEFICIENCIES in Bester's reasoning? Why can't ANYONE seem to grasp that? Mushy definitions that will fit any mold...that's bollocks. How can I argue logically with a person that isn't using logic himself? Posted by impactor returns on 04-23-2003 at 07:30 PM:
I think u will find that me and BF have argued over many points relevent to this thread.
u continue to be proved utterly wrong. im sorry, i will concede defeat when i have to, but everything u say makes no sense, and has no basis. im not taking the piss, love, but this whole thread proves it. Posted by Sir Auros on 04-23-2003 at 07:42 PM:
quote:Who ever said I was arguing? I long ago stopped even attempting to argue with you because it just doesn't work. I do indeed love making personal attacks on yourself because, quite frankly, you beg for it. Both in action and in what you tell us. I do indeed argue and argue well with people who are civil, well-informed, and, well, not blatantly racist or ethnocentric. Can I get a backup from the Archivers on this peeps? Posted by Sheba on 04-23-2003 at 07:48 PM:
quote: What exactly am I saying that you can't make sense of? How can I be proven "wrong" when people can't even agree amongst themselves of the definition of neofascism?! Aside from what BF's experts think, what about other experts? Do their opinions not count? There is hardly anything remotely resembling consensus on this issue. quote:what's that mean? Posted by Sheba on 04-23-2003 at 07:51 PM:
quote:By "cheap" I mean they must have been saving money by printing the shortest, most ambiguous definition possible. It's short, but definitely not sweet. THAT is what I mean by "cheap." If they're so respectable and authoritative then why in blazes havent' they put out a more thorough, descriptive, unambiguous definition? Hell even Besters admitted it was simplistic. Posted by impactor returns on 04-23-2003 at 07:54 PM:
but your issues have no validation, if they did, then u could make a point. but u havent.
U need to look at your thoughts, make sure u belive in them, and then post somthing that makes sene, because at the monet hunny, your just making a fool of yourself, and ppl who belive in your views to. your oing no good to the logic of your argument, christ i could do it better, but i understand, your head full of rage etc... but calm donw, think, and we might have somthing logical to debate. Posted by Sheba on 04-23-2003 at 07:56 PM:
quote:You are a blatant liar. I am NOT racist nor am I ethnocentric. I am not scared of black people, white people, asian people or indians etc walking down the street. I do NOT hate people based on religion or color of skin or country of origin, etc. I do not treat people differently based on the color of their skin. I do NOT think ANYONE is AUTOMATICALLY a bad person based on color of skin, country of origin, or religion. I don't agree with extremists of any religion but I don't hate them. You on the other hand, DO think someone is a bad person automatically, based on their religion...because in your opinion it's 'extremist'--so how does that make you any BETTER than ME?! What's with this "ethnocentric" bullcrap. I don't think any ethnicity is superior to any other. Posted by Sir Auros on 04-23-2003 at 08:04 PM:
quote:Sheba supports this site and she's defended this before...  I think that speaks for itself, now for my defense for those of you who don't know me so well, and I hope my Archive comrades here will back me on this...I'm good and Sheba is bad. Simple really. Also, she did happen to say that it was ok for Africans to be enslaved since they were already doing it and they were practicing an animistic religion that, well, wasn't Christianity, and by golly, we all know that if it's not Christianity, it's worthy of contempt! Oh yeah, and I rock. EDIT-I'd also like to point out this thread on the Archive http://forums.tfarchive2.net/vBulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13078 Now, I'm not fond of Catholicism (probably what she's referring to, or my distaste for the Southern Baptists I'm surrounded by), but despite that, I'm here in this thread vehemently defending Catholicism... Posted by impactor returns on 04-23-2003 at 08:05 PM:
quote:out of interest, how do u feel about the current religous uprise in Iraq, now that collition forces have feeded them from thier oppresor? Posted by Sheba on 04-23-2003 at 08:07 PM:
quote:Explain that to me please. What do you mean, they have no validation? quote:My head is NOT full of rage (unlike some people around here *coughcoughSirAuroscoughcoughKarlLynchcoughcough* I'm actually staying pretty calm. It's you guys what are flying off the handle. Some see an accusation of "neofascist" and immediately people begin to foam at the mouth. I'm TRYING to make sense, but the problem is people do not understand. It's like I'm posting in a language other than English. OK let's be logical now. Is it logical for a neocommunist to be anticommunist? I think you need to read the other posts in that forum Impy. Specifically, Alan's reply to a Nazi, among others. Posted by Sheba on 04-23-2003 at 08:10 PM:
quote:It will have to be sorted out somehow. But that doesn't mitigate the oppression by Saddam. A brutal totalitarian regime isn't the best place for learning tolerance. Posted by Sir Auros on 04-23-2003 at 08:13 PM:
I thought there was a prohibition on these insanely long, multiple posts as she's doing now?
Posted by impactor returns on 04-23-2003 at 08:31 PM:
Sheba, its best left if u cant say anything worth saying.
i understand u cant argue with logic etc... so lets not continue as your not msking an sense. On a personal note are u ok? and i mean it, do u nead help with a drug problem etc? i really can help if this is becoming to much for u? Posted by HoistKeeper 2.0 on 04-23-2003 at 08:56 PM:
quote:Because They ARE simplistic discriptions which is why they have not put out a more thorough, descriptive, unambiguous definition, it has nothing to do with saving money! Were talking dictionaries here, they put short discriptions in to save money?, p-lease! you and besters are right about the discriptions being simplistic but you Sheba are still wrong by saying they are cheap and trying to save money when it is irrelivant to the publishing. See the difference? sorry for the off topic folks Posted by the uiltmate prime fan on 04-23-2003 at 10:02 PM:
god damn it.
sheba, i've been reading these debates for quite some time. each time one of these posts comes up, i look expectantly to it, hoping that you would finally concede the same point that many have been trying make you understand for an equal amount of time. i still wait. now i've been a patient man. i'd hoped that besters, or compy, or karl, or blacksword, or whoever, would do the job with my stepping in, since in no way am i anywhere near the level of debator that they are. but it is becoming clear to me, that i will finally have to step in. let me ask you something: why, if you in fact, canadian, are you so eager to jump onto the Gorge bush bandwagon? why are you so eager to believe the blatant lies that have been uttered by the people in charge? do you want to be an american? if so, i cant imagine why. you live in a realm that has yet to be killed off by its corperations, you still live free of the thinly veiled fascism of either of the patriot acts, and the machinations of the bush adminstration. do you admire bush? again, cant imagine why. the man has lied more times than i can count, he is a blatant warmonger and imperialist, he has appointed the worst kinds of fasicsts to his goverment, and he exploits the deaths of millions in iraqi and thousands of americans for political gain. this is a man who will use the events of 9/11 to get re-elected for gods sake. i leave the actual debate to those who have proven their apptitude for it, but i leave you with this, last appeal: leave the debate on transfans, at transfans. i have read both of the posts at protest warrior, and frankly, the atmsphere there reminds me of the preening and jocking for postion among many of hitlers top aides. they work to enter into favor with the site adminstrator, and thus, atleast from my viewing, submit their own opnions to his. further, best first made a valid point: it seems from your actions here, that you cant fight your own battles. and while i choose not echo that sentiment, i urge you from now on, if you wish not to hear that again, to not invite the openning. leave the debate here. and also, one other thing: you seem to hold the belief that all socialists, or marxists, or anyone who holds a belief different from the establishment as "the bad guys". well, im a socialist. anyone whos read one of my political posts has to atleast had a suspicsion. i've read both Das Kapital, and the communist manifesto. i actively advocate revolution against a force i see as inherently evil. i am a fervent anti-bushite, and i support the ACLU and in fact am a card carrying member. so, am i one of the bad guys? am i evil? because its that kind of moralistic nonsense that you have backed yourself into sheba. for anyone else who has read this, i appoligize for the length of this post, or of its {most likely} many spelling errors. i have to go and prepare my case for tommorow. Posted by Nebbie on 04-23-2003 at 10:36 PM:
Sheba, if you love Shrub so much, you're welcome to come live at my place in the US. I am scared to death of him. I'm scared he's going to take over the world in the name of 9/11. He's already done it to Iraq. Syria is on the list next. Who's to stop him from saying that Japan, Germany, Great Britain or hell even Canada have 'weapons of mass destruction'? Does it make you feel any better knowing you might be on the list?
I'm frightened that a controversial right of women is about to be taken away, and that those who have taken advantage of that right will be punished. I'm afraid that he's going to take it into his head to close the US borders, in which case I really will have to leave. I'm afraid that the freedoms I love and cherish are going to be taken away in the name of national security. I don't know you Sheba. Maybe you're frightened of this too. But maybe not. Maybe having 10 cameras trained on your every move will make you feel safe. Maybe you'll like it when the US goes back to its isolationist past. Then again, maybe not. Make of this what you will, I really don't care. But I will tell you this. DON'T insult my fiance where I can hear you. Posted by Nightbeat on 04-23-2003 at 11:28 PM:
Since when are royal families military dictatorships? Does this mean that the Royal Family in England is also a military dictatorship? Will we see Prince Charles striding around in a kahki uniform, ordering his subjects that he doesn't like(or possibly because it's no-hat day) to be rounded up and executed?
Of course not. Admittedly, Jordan's King Hussien(uh, oh. His name's Hussein. We better go get him now. Note the sarcasam in my tone) could concieveably go out and round up his people and start whacking them left and right, but he doesn't because the people would, logically, rise up and he could well find himself a head shorter. A military dictatorship hangs onto power because they've got the biggest guns, and are swept away when the guys with better equipment than theirs show up. A king hangs onto power these days by the good will of his people. Otherwise he finds himself out of work when his country becomes democratic. This is why I've stayed out of this topic for so long, barring the occasional foray in to see what else is going on. We got Hussein out, the country is back on the road to self-governing(an' fer the love of Primus, if they want a religious based government, let them have it. If they want a government run by Bozo the Freaking Clown, let them have it. It's better than what they had, after all), because of the kilometer-long arguments that are going nowhere, and the addition of this whole Protest Warrior group of people makes me twitch. Posted by Master_Fwiffo on 04-23-2003 at 11:33 PM:
Well I was going to post an argument to something, but then I realized I couldn't make heads or tails of either side of the debate anymore, so the heck with it.
Pardon me, Have you seen a debate I could understand? Posted by Karl Lynch on 04-24-2003 at 05:59 AM:
i started a nice topic on foolish contestants in gameshows?
Posted by Blacksword on 04-24-2003 at 10:02 AM:
Well didn't I miss a fun time by writing an exam and going back home.
Sheba you've lost face it. Best First's definitions are valid. They are broad because neo-facism isn't a cohesive ideology like classical facism is. It is a term describing a fairly wide spectrum of reactionary radicaly right wing movements which all meet most of list of criteria. I think it's rather obvious that once these sort of movements began people took note, noticed a bunch of reactionary groups who used a few elements of facism and after studying a large number of groups, derived a list of behavioural traits which define what they came to call neo-facism. Its a fairly common term and one not used lightly. I don't know the field, but I willing to believe Besty when he says that he learned under some of the top experts. If they are the top experts it is reasonable to assume much of the field agrees with these guys. If they were talking bollocks the rest of the academic community would have ripped them up or ignored them. So just face the facts Best First's definitions are good. Yes they are broad, but so is the what they describe. Protest Warrior fits a number of the criteria and can be said to fit the lable of neo-facism fairly well based on what I've seen at the site. As to their humour, and satire, there is a line of good taste and they've crossed ti. It's not funny and it is somewhat offensive at least to some people. And I didn't see a lot of tongue in cheek in those posts, these guys to me seem like some of the most literal chaps I've come across in a long time, or atleast have a tom of in jokes no one else gets. Show us some tongue and cheek material to prove your point. The burden of proof is on you and your questionable friends, not us. And please this is a thread about Iraq, this whining of yours has derailed the old one once and this one twice. Some people want to have some useful discussion here. If you want to whine about this more don't. If you have some valid point, check with the mods and start another thread, and quit cluttering up this one. Posted by Nosecone on 04-24-2003 at 02:09 PM:
well some goo dhas come from all Shebas posts. I was originally gonna vote BNP in the upcoming elections cause I'm fed up with immigrants where I live but seeing what the right are really I like I've swung right the other way and am now voting Liberal
Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 04-24-2003 at 05:58 PM:
Drifting off topic, or perhaps on topic again
, I was watching Newsnight earlier this evening and a report on Iraq showed an American tank with the tanks name painted on the barrel. The name was Cthulhu's pride.Is there something the US military isn't telling us? Posted by Sir Auros on 04-24-2003 at 06:06 PM:
quote:Yes... Cthulhu fhtagn! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah-bagl fthaga... Posted by Sheba on 04-24-2003 at 08:31 PM:
quote:Personal note, no I'm fine. I use no drugs. I have absolutely NO problem arguing with logic. This is the problem I have: Best First asserts protestwarrior is neofascist I ask why he says because he's an expert, while misunderstanding some things in the site that he takes to mean are "evil" or something I ask for more specifics he gives a laundry list of individual things that "pick three or four" and you "automatically" get neofascism out of it But when I press further for justification of the reasoning behind the selection of the identifying characteristics, or I ask what exactly about the characteristics makes it "evil" or "bad" when taken together (depending on which you pick and choose), he can't say anything more than I'm insulting his education. Well you're goddam rights I am. If he can't answer a few simple DEEPER questioning into the deeper reasoning behind it all, WHAT THE HELL GOOD WAS ALL THAT FANCY EDUCATION???? Remember, people see "fascism" in ANY form, they think EVIL. You want to say militarism is neofascist? Fine. Tell me exactly HOW. WHAT about being militarily prepared is EVIL? Is it a catchall for definitions, or are there specifics within the definition that signify a) oppression b) conquest or anything like that?! Patriotism? Or Nationalism? Which is it? And WHY? To WHAT DEGREE?! Is it in and of itself EVIL, or is there a threshold that must be crossed first? Scapegoating. BEST FIRST FAIIIIIILED to show that Protestwarrior was guilty of scapegoating. Scapegoating is blaming and punishing one kid for writing on the walls when the other kid did it. At no time does protestwarrior blame anyone THAT DOES NOT DESERVE THE BLAME THEY GET. Best First has FAILED to show where protestwarrior falsely accused anybody of anything. Those were the MAIN definition markers he used in that context. Posted by impactor returns on 04-24-2003 at 11:01 PM:
BF showed everything perfectly time and time again.
Anyhows, its not for me to back up BF, hes far more capable then i. And PW is a joke, they just ignore every decent argument made, delete threads and posts. they cant argue against anything us lot said over thier like adults. At least your posts dont get deleted here now do they Sheba? at least u have your say. I dont mind anyone haveing thier own view, but when they cant back it up substantially, and have to fall back on insults, and BLATENT miss-quoting and worst of all, deleting posts. thats just sad  Posted by Best First on 04-25-2003 at 04:54 AM:
quote:Yes but seeing as there is no point in me going back and constantly rewriting the same thing over and over again - im not going to bother. This is Sheba's entire appraoch - she can't prove me wrong, she can't counter my points, so she just repeatedly ignores them and restates the same tired crap until the person who is disagreeing with her gets pissed off with it all and stops bothering. She then pats herself on the back that she has won and she is a good debater and retreats back into her whacky world. So well done Sheba, im not going to bother with this any more - because you have shown no respect for my efforts in this 'debate' ( ) and as a result i have no more respect for you.Do what you like. These neo-fascist pricks are so far from mattering anyway it won't exactly make a huge difference. Posted by Sir Auros on 04-25-2003 at 05:17 AM:
quote:The other option is the approach I've taken when dealing with her Posted by Humorous Conclusion on 04-25-2003 at 05:45 AM:
I'm starting to think that this thread needs to be closed and a new one open. The discussion has been completely de-railed by all this neo-Fascist stuff. I think all of us can agree (exceot Sheba) that Best First won the argument (to put it mildly, comprehensively slaughtered his opponent) but the debate wont just lay down and die.
In another thread this would not be a problem, those of us who had got fed up could just go away. But this thread is the only permitted thread for discussion of Iraq, and nobody is able to have a discussion. The problem is that everytime somebody tries to start a new line of discussion Sheba pops up again to say the same old thing which has to be challeneged. I'd say ignore her, but her posts have a tendency to be enormous and rather distracting. There have been several promising discussions started in the last few days (and no I'm not including my Cthulhu tank post in that) and they never really got off the ground because of the regular need to return to the same argument. We don't seem to be able to move on within this thread so I believe we need a new one. Posted by Best First on 04-25-2003 at 05:57 AM:
quote:All fair points. ****TOPIC CLOSED***** |
