Say Anything Blog

So if we just resolve to not be terrorized and react “rationally” which implicitly excludes war, we will “do our job”?  Oh yeah, which “job” includes fighting politicians who would use war to defeat our enemies. 

Did somebody miss the part where our effort in this war have prevented another terrorist attack on our soil?  Did somebody miss the progress made in Iraq?  Did somebody ignore the dent made in Al qaeda’s ranks?  Did somebody ignore the fact that we are winning? 

If our efforts would be more wisely directed it would not be with less force but more.  A greater force with less regard for political expediency would not only have terrorized the terrorists, but allowed less time for liberals to negatively influence public opinion.

spark, Muslim terrorists keep telling you, they do not want anything from us other than submission. You either become Muslim, become dhimmi, or become dead. Exactly what part of that do you not comprehend?

As for intel and investigation, the political left has fought that at every turn. So try again.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

pwned.

bullshit. the warning levels. the publicity surrounding ‘chatter’ and all that? that’s us being terrorized. by them and ourselves. we cannot get a mandate to deal with these things unless the people feel it. do you feel it? can we go into Iran yet? hold on, just a little more terror, then we can get a mandate and go into Iran.

wussies. we can absorb a lot more terror. the rest of the world does. why are we such wimps? and we think that continuing to go around the world and expand our military presence will help us? explain the causal relation between that and less terror? there isn’t one. its all premised on BS and its expensive.

what’s more, a war against ‘terror’ is about the stupidest thing i have ever heard. what marketing firm came up with that garbage? where’s the terror? let’s fucking bomb it. drrrrrr.

Sparkie, are you really suggesting that we just get a better lubricant for when the terrorists shove it up our butts?

That sure sounds like living in terror, hiding in our basements to me.

Being proactive implies quite the opposite.  It means not living in terror, but doing the necessary things to put an end to it, at least at the threat level it had deteriorated to by the end of the Clinton presidency.

I prefer the “War on Global Terrorism”.  That has some pretty specific meaning to those of us who have read on and understand the root causes of global terrorism.  One of the chief of these by the way is state-sponsorship, as with the Taliban and al Qaeda., and Iraq and the various terrorist groups it was giving refuge to, financial assistance to and even training.

The word global is meant as a synonym for “international”.  Terrorist attacks across the border into Turkey or sponsored acts of terrorism against Israel qualify.  Why?  Because we are globally linked and things that happen to one country now affect the rest of us.

also, if you don’t think the teevee and the politicians are stringing you along like 16 year old girls… you’re wrong. for all the ‘rationality’ the right purports to exercise, they sure are a bunch of emotional, irrational jackasses. oh, but you say the left are the ones who get duped my the media. they are not alone. look in the mirror.

‘we will avenge this’

more like hate crimes against people who look remotely muslim will go up 2000%. super rational! you call that not being terrorized? you call that a justified response? all the stereotyping and profiling that r108 and kitty have stuck up for is the result of being terrorized. they have split us up internally, come between americans because of faith or looks, headdress. clarity of thought goes out the window. sweet job creampuffs. done yet?

mind footing the bill on your own? tax and spend fancies who are trying with all their might (and my fucking money) to come off tough. no one cares. its not the cold war. adapt to something new. its all being spent on virtual security anyway. too bad the world aint virtual.

also, if you want to be a superpower, fund things other than the military R&D - like fundamental, pure sciences. the difference between us and pakistan is science and variety (we aren’t all flag waving morons, despite r108 and Neiman’s wishes), not guns and bombs.

Bush will go down in history as the pres who made the US not a superpower. make no mistake. that’s your boy.

carrick

I prefer the “War on Global Terrorism”.  That has some pretty (nice qualification) specific meaning to those of us who have read on and understand the root causes of global terrorism (a little condescension. explain it then, instead of just invoking allusions, oh knowledgeable one. wait, is it secret? i bet it is!).  One of the chief of these by the way is state-sponsorship, as with the Taliban and al Qaeda., and Iraq and the various terrorist groups it was giving refuge to, financial assistance to and even training.

what makes you think i haven’t read on this? you don’t think i know Saudi Arabia is a terror sponsor? And the US? And the UK? And France? And China? and Russia?

spell out our next move, oh enlightened one. bullshit. we’re pouring gas on a fire. its a waste of money and effort and we are supporting people who we will be fighting in 15 years. that’s our record. with all this knee-jerk reactionary bullshit, i expect nothing less.

is ‘pretty specific’ kinda like ‘pretty non-specific’? or is it more like ‘beautiful specific’? your offer the breath of a ghost. i can put my hand through you.

also, since you know the root causes of global terrorism, can you spell those out for us. a short, bulleted list will do, oh knowledgeable one.

"Global Terrorism” began in the 1930’s with the ressurgence of militant, jihadist Islam led by Hassan al Banna and The Moslem Brotherhood.

They have one goal: The conversion of the planet to Islam.  It has nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with Western imperialism. It has nothing to do with hate-crimes.  It has everything to do with the triumph of Islam.

Allah is our objective.  The prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

It’s too bad, Sparkie, that you aren’t as good at doing your homeowork as you are at ranting.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

"Global Terrorism” began in the 1930’s with the ressurgence of militant, jihadist Islam led by Hassan al Banna and The Moslem Brotherhood.

They have one goal: The conversion of the planet to Islam.  It has nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with Western imperialism. It has nothing to do with hate-crimes.  It has everything to do with the triumph of Islam.

Allah is our objective.  The prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

It’s too bad, Sparkie, that you aren’t as good at doing your homework as you are at ranting.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

I hate it when that happens....

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

pp
Ok. SO if the Muslim Brotherhood is illegal in Syria, and punishable by death, as it was in Saddam’s Iraq… (Saddam was and Assad is… Ba’athists) what the fuck are you talking about? how does that relate to our current actions, allies, or anything else? Saudi Arabia supports the muslim brotherhood big time. BIG TIME. what of it?

Also, I have discussed what went on in Egypt in the 1950s on this blog before. Sayyid Qutb, and that history… the real history of al Qaeda. Not the muslim brotherhood, which is peripherally related as an umbrella, but not specifically. r108 said it best… we were looking through a cold war lens then. well, we have a new lens now and we are still fucking our future selves. speaking of lubrication, CARRICK.

are you to expect me to believe that this group poses any real threat to the sovereignty of the US and/or the freedoms we are supposed to enjoy here? bullshit. we have domestic terror attacks. do you think that the oklahoma city bombing should have recipitated a war against all the racist, white POSs living in this country? and that mythic garbage literature McVeigh was brainwashed by. Why are the Turner Diaries and those kooks not hunted down like we hunt down al Qaeda. We ‘absorbed’ that bombing pretty easy, eh? No ‘war on global terror’ there, eh?

I do my homework. DOn’t patronize me because i AM not stupid.

also, this is not war. it doesn’t warrant any of the suspensions of normal conduct this country was designed to function under. we let the terrorists weaken our form of gov’t. their very goal. that’s why i say they won round one. Just imagine what our rights will look like after round two. they will be nonexistent.

now go ahead and provide some nice rationalizations for further dissolving our constitution because you are afraid. don’t tell me that this admin cares a.o the constitution. they have been rebuked 4 times to date. they are liars, manipulators, and those facts have been proven and reproven.

as if the weapons we ‘did not’ provide to the sandistas in central america made a fuck bit of progress or difference. who is the pres in Nicaragua now? refresh my memory.

we’ll get nothing but more of the same. its the same people too. they botched a bunch of shit back in the day, failed… and have a chip on their shoulder about it. so they are keeping on destroying our rights, constitution, democracy, superpower status, and our geo-strategic position… with tactics that have been proven to be failures.

brilliant. ten more years and we’ll resemble russia’s govt even more.

winning the war on terror by driving freedom and democracy into the ground is ass-backwards. that’s what they want. this turn to religion, the anger, the need for vengeance. they want us to react like that. carry on…

sparkless-arse-fuckin-buckle screeches:

I do my homework. DOn’t[sic] patronize me because i[sic] AM not stupid.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Interesting er rant, Sparkie.

Why do you think the United States funds terrorists?  Can you name one example.

But in any case, we aren’t pouring gasoline on the fire.

The fuel that keeps the fire burning looks like this:

Of course it gets converted from crude oil into that more flammable version because our friends in the DNC think it makes more sense to buy Saudi oil than to produce our own.

Once upon a time it looked like this:

And this is what the gasoline getting poured on the fire looked like:

$25,000 “grant” signed by Saddam personally to the family of a terrorist who blew himself killing 11 Israels, wounding 52. 

Finally here’s what the fire looks like:

Now, I’ve laid out one example Sparkie, perhaps you can er entertain us with a clear example of where the United States funds a terrorist organization, one who carries out attacks aimed to maim or kill civilians for the purpose of creating terror?

One root cause of global terrorism, by the way, is the funding of extremists to carry out attacks that benefit the funders in some way.  These terrorists are to the man thugs, mercenaries or psychos.  Without the funding network, there would be no global terror network. 

A second root cause of global terrorism is training and logistical support of said terrorists.

That won’t stop isolated acts by crazies like this
but fortunately training, logistical support and funding do matter.

If you want to stop global terrorism, you have to stop states like Iran and Syria, the primary funders.  Then you have to shut down their financial networks, and apprehend the people who are providing support and training for the psychos,

What you don’t do, which is what you are advocating, is lubricating ourselves so it doesn’t hurt as much.

Cheers.

wussies. we can absorb a lot more terror. the rest of the world does. why are we such wimps?

Wow!  How friggen stupid can you be!

You have raised the bar with that one Sparkie.

Why do you think the United States funds terrorists?  Can you name one example.

Why not more than one?
1) In Iran. Here you go. We have been supporting a Pakistani arm of al Qaeda recently, bc they are anti-Iran.Bravo! Again. And another anti-Iran group, who has repeatedly lobbied to get off our terror list to no avail, we support them too.
2) In Cuba. Again. And an especially credible one. More here. Oh, and here. Here.
3) In Palestine.
4) In Nicaragua our CIA-trained ‘contras’ killed just short of 1000 government officials. We all know about that.
5) We protect terrorists from prosecution and extradition too, as evidenced here. How do you think we would feel if Venezuela was rendering suspects on a secretive, warrantless basis in the US?
6)The Phillipines.
7) Panama.
8)Iraq.
9)Domestic training facility.
10) i can make this list expand almost indefinitely.

Carrick is merely using a one-sided term. If we do it, it aint terror. If someone does it to us, it is.

How do you feel about us supporting a branch of al Qaeda, in Pakistan, just because they are anti-Iran? How do you feel about the people we put into power in Iran in 1953? Democracy lovers? No, they were Islamic extremists.

Explain all that away, Carrick. BULLSHITTER.

Terrorism is just some relative bullshit term. Its politically expedient and chauvinist.

Arab diplomats have continued to argue that any comprehensive definition of terrorism must include the phenomena of ”state terrorism” and distinguish it from the right of self-determination.

According to this argument, Israel is guilty of state terrorism in the occupied territories, while Palestinians are ”freedom fighters.”

The Israelis, on the other hand, have a different take on it: a Palestinian who deliberately kills an Israeli child is a terrorist, while an Israeli who deliberately kills a Palestinian child is a soldier or settler.

There is no such thing as Middle Eastern terrorism and American Terrorism. As I said in the first question, the literal definition of the word terrorist does not distinguish between intent, action and result. Needless to say, it is both culturally and politically relative, making it difficult to hold an international consensus on the definition. It may be easier to identify certain acts of violence as being “"terroristic," but the justifications or explanations of the objective, and how an act’s outcome is viewed depends on a number of things including a person’s or group’s perspective; their political persuasion; the dynamics of international relations.

We are Janus. Talking out both sides of our face. And have been. When Saddam came to power in ‘77, the CIA provided him with a list of people to kill. That’s not terror, though, that’s freedom fighting!

Bullshit.

Why do you think the United States funds terrorists?  Can you name one example.

Why not more than one?
1) In Iran. Here you go. We have been supporting a Pakistani arm of al Qaeda recently, bc they are anti-Iran.Bravo! Again. And another anti-Iran group, who has repeatedly lobbied to get off our terror list to no avail, we support them too.
2) In Cuba. Again. And an especially credible one. More here. Oh, and here. Here.
3) In Palestine.
4) In Nicaragua our CIA-trained ‘contras’ killed just short of 1000 government officials. We all know about that.
5) We protect terrorists from prosecution and extradition too, as evidenced here. How do you think we would feel if Venezuela was rendering suspects on a secretive, warrantless basis in the US?
6)The Phillipines.
7) Panama.
8)Iraq.
9)Domestic training facility.
10) i can make this list expand almost indefinitely.

Carrick is merely using a one-sided term. If we do it, it aint terror. If someone does it to us, it is.

How do you feel about us supporting a branch of al Qaeda, in Pakistan, just because they are anti-Iran? How do you feel about the people we put into power in Iran in 1953? Democracy lovers? No, they were Islamic extremists.

Explain all that away, Carrick. BULLSHITTER.

Terrorism is just some relative bullshit term. Its politically expedient and chauvinist.

Arab diplomats have continued to argue that any comprehensive definition of terrorism must include the phenomena of ”state terrorism” and distinguish it from the right of self-determination.

According to this argument, Israel is guilty of state terrorism in the occupied territories, while Palestinians are ”freedom fighters.”

The Israelis, on the other hand, have a different take on it: a Palestinian who deliberately kills an Israeli child is a terrorist, while an Israeli who deliberately kills a Palestinian child is a soldier or settler.

There is no such thing as Middle Eastern terrorism and American Terrorism. As I said in the first question, the literal definition of the word terrorist does not distinguish between intent, action and result. Needless to say, it is both culturally and politically relative, making it difficult to hold an international consensus on the definition. It may be easier to identify certain acts of violence as being “"terroristic," but the justifications or explanations of the objective, and how an act’s outcome is viewed depends on a number of things including a person’s or group’s perspective; their political persuasion; the dynamics of international relations.

We are Janus. Talking out both sides of our face. And have been. When Saddam came to power in ‘77, the CIA provided him with a list of people to kill. That’s not terror, though, that’s freedom fighting!

Bullshit.

We can all sleep a little better knowing Sparkie’s wisdom ignorance is relegated to a small minority of confused Americans.

From the ABC article linked above:

“Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera,” Debat said.

Well, this guy must not be a terrorist since he’s on our side.
/sarcasm
You, HG, are the silly one.

HG
I don’t know. I guess ‘Vanity Fair’ isn’t a very widely read or circulated rag… not. The linked article above reads:

The video reveals a bare room with white walls and a black-and-white tiled floor, where abu Dan’s father is forced to sit and listen to his son’s shrieks of pain. Afterward, abu Dan says, he and two of the others were driven to a market square. “They told us they were going to kill us. They made us sit on the ground.” He rolls up the legs of his trousers to display the circular scars that are evidence of what happened next: “They shot our knees and feet—five bullets each. I spent four months in a wheelchair.”

Abu Dan had no way of knowing it, but his tormentors had a secret ally: the administration of President George W. Bush.

Oh, they’re on our side? Must not be terrorists then. Thank God.
/sarcasm

Not to excuse it, assuming the accusations are true, but killing military commanders or government officieals is not exactly an act of terrorism.  Terrorism is not a bullshit word, it’s well defined.

It’s acts of violence against the civilian population.  Funding paramilitary organizations to operate against our enemies is a different thing.

Secondly, we were talking about now, and where we go from here.  Not from events that transpired circa the invention of the wheel.

vanity Fair is a rag magazine, btw.  One of those I wouldn’t trust for the correct day of the week.

The world isn’t morally relativistic, Sparkie, regardless of how hard you want it to be.

This link is just trash by the way.

That tells me a lot about your intellectual processes that you would have accepted it at face value, including your usual desire to vilify your country of origin.

I refuse to be terrorized.  I fought and fight them when they present themselves.  I do not look for them.  I, too was surprised when they flew airplanes into buildings on 9/11/01. 
It is kind of hard to do this: 

There are things our government can and should do to fight terrorism, most of them involving intelligence and investigation…

Communism is evil

Carrick
I notice you said nothing of our funding of al Qaeda in Baluchistan. Can you speak on that? Was that what you rationalized by claiming that they were military targets? So, according to that logic, none of the people fighting our troops in Iraq are terrorists, correct?

It’s acts of violence against the civilian population.  Funding paramilitary organizations to operate against our enemies is a different thing.

I don’t think it is. How come when we fund them they are called paramilitary organizations, but when others fund them they are called terrorist organizations?

I just would love a clarification on that!

This means that:
1) the bombing of the USS Cole was not a terrorist attack
2) neither was the attack on the embassies in africa or syria or elsewhere

and many other things. would you like to hedge on your definitions or show us some source that might edify the worry that they didn’t just come out of your head, spontaneously?

i linked above how there is problems defining terrorist. don’t ignore that. you beg the question without explaining yourself.

chief,
cheers, bro. i wonder why people aren’t reading confidential material? not.

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred.

Wrong!  Islamic terrorism is a strategy by which a less powerful force can take over entire nations by causing them to lose heart and stop fighting.
You just don’t get it, “Sparkie”.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Sparkie, until you learn to differentiate reliable sources from unreliable ones, substantiated claims from unsubstantiated ones, there’s not really too much to discuss.  Especially given your proclivity for assuming the worst about the US and never asking hard questions of any of the accusations against it.  No anti-American accusation gets unused in Sparkie’s world.

But yes, you are correct.  Attacking US troops in Iraq does not make one a terrorist.  Technically, attacking the USS Cole would not be a terrorist attack either.  Nor would be assassinating Israel soldiers, etc. 

However, simply because you attack US troops doesn’t mean that you aren’t a terrorist.  A terrorist organization (one that targets civilian populations) could also attack military and/or governmental ones.

Also, there are non-governmental working people at embassies, which the terrorists would have known.  Attacking non-military targets where known civilians are present, and indiscriminate killing like this, I would say is definitely terroristic.  I suppose in your world somebody who kills the daughter of an embassy worker is a “freedom fighter”, right?

Sparkie, I am sure you are aware that a majority of Democrats, including the most vocal were asked if they had taken the time to read the available material and they said, No.  My point.  Intelligence is good.  I am S-2 myself, but sometimes S-3 needs to act on that intel.

Communism is evil

Also, if we’re going to be clear about definitions, a civilian is an individual who is not a member of the military or police force, which by extension includes governmental officials who oversee these areas.

So technically, targeting and killing the Minister of Defense or the Prime MInister could be an act against command-and-control, and would not normally be construed as an attack against a civilian, especially if the purpose of the attack were to damage command-and-control.  Targeting and killing the Deputy MInister for Education, assuming he had no other roles, would be though.  (Extra credit for the identifies and dates here.)

Furthermore, intent definitely plays into whether an act is terroristic or not, by definition. If the intent is to cause terror through acts of violence targeting the civilian population, then yes it’s terrorist.  That would include blowing up government buildings, even if no injuries resulted.  Often there is little doubt about intent, because the terrorist organization chooses targets and makes statements pre and post attack that remove any doubt.

As to spontaneous… I’m just not very spontaneous about anything, Sparkie.  I’ve thought about this question for years, and have been mulling this question today in between data collections…

Seeing the brain salad that is typical of your writings, I would guess, on this forum at least, you however are.

carrick
you accuse me of the same things you do.
assumption:

there are non-governmental working people at embassies, which the terrorists would have known

don’t you think that if we know what the ‘terrorists’ know, we’d be doing a little better? how can you make these counterfactuals and think its getting somewhere or driving home a point about your shoddy definition. do you feel any of our acts since the 1950s could be labeled terrorism? if its ancient history, why are decisions against lybia from the 70s being handed down now?

your proclivity for assuming the worst about the US and never asking hard questions of any of the accusations against it.  No anti-American accusation gets unused in Sparkie’s world.

carrick. you get my entire position incorrect. i am pro-american. i care about america and its future. that’s why rash, proven-false, and plain stupid methods strike me as dangerous. guns alone can win nothing. we have been asked to just sit back, wait, spend, and lets the guns roar. we aren’t getting anywhere. there has been no thought, merely kneejerk reactions. where the fuck did iraq come from? seriously. because he paid martyr’s families? bullshit. countless other leaders do that. all the things he did, countless other leaders do. it was a lie. it was strategic. that’s great, but they should be honest up front so people can say FUCK NO. its democracy, one of the things we claimed to be doing over there, among a host of others. moreover, i am a fan of the state system and have a problem with any sort of meddling, be it by terrorists or states, in other states. this is not called appeasement. its called not being a cunt. moreover, the history of the US since 1950 is not ‘since the invention of the wheel’. you can pick on my stupidity, but our actions since then have shaped the GWOT as it is today and have also proven that some of the methods we currently employ (such as proxy wars or the funding of terrorists or spending all our R&D money on guns) are proven to be expensive, minimally successful, and always come back to bite us in the ass.
you are puffing and putting up a cover, not me. it is public knowledge that we have armed, and continue to arm, various unsavory groups around the world. we continue to do so. view Pakistan. view Saudi Arabia. the ‘War on Terror’ is a propagandists farce. one need only look at the lies, the obfuscations, the changing rationalizations to realize it has not only been an expensive and shoddy war, its propaganda wing has utterly sucked. at least they could figure out how to pitch this thing consistently.
now we are back to funding the mujahadeen MEK and al Qaeda in Baluchistan. You claim that fine, these are just ‘sunni activists’ or paramilitary organizations. do you think it makes a fuck bit of difference when we poopoo iran and then turn around and do this? I doubt it. I am interested in America regaining its moral, scientific, and political authority. You, clearly, are not. And you are invested in ignoring history that might shed unsavory light on our current tactics. Like I said, bullshit.

Intelligence is good.

Oh, maybe you and r108 should get your stories straight.

Carrick
Our actions around the globe vis-a-vis ‘paramilitary organizations’ are well known - its not false or revisionary history. We cannot have authority when we poopoo Iran or Syria for doing the same.

You clearly have nothing but contempt for the state system, given your views on these ‘paramilitary orgs’. That makes it hard to be a nationalist, as you claim to be. Are we morally justified in occupying any country that we decide to? You blow smoke.

What about our current operations (’hot’ conflicts) in Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Somalia, and countless other places? Morally objectively valid?

Whatever. Soon a new generation will be in power here. It’ll be different. The whole traditional anti-commie artifacts will be long gone. It won’t be McCain, or even a few after him… but a few after that.

However kookie you think I am. These arguments aren’t mine, I didn’t dream them up. I don’t even nec. endorse them. As far as I am concerned its just as much bullshit as your arguments. You can blame me, but if you start sputtering and don’t fare well against them, that’s your problem, not mine.

Now, let’s have you spell out the tenets of this objective morality you have referred to, Carrick. inquiring minds want to know.

So…

Why are we all wasting time and inconveniencing electrons over the rantings of sparkeless-arse-fuckin-buckle?

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Sparkie, sorry to disabuse your attempts at moral relativism, but paramilitary units kill soldiers, not tourists in coffee shops.

Hope that helps your confusion some, though I doubt it.

The Philippines example just shows to what goofy level of blame-America-first you guys go to.  Lemmee get this straight:  We help fund the Phillipines military. Individuals within the Philippines military commit atrocities.

Therefore the US is guilty of funding atrocities.

Some logic there.

With logic like that, I’d advise you from making any important life decisions, till you get that fixed.

These arguments aren’t mine, I didn’t dream them up. I don’t even nec. endorse them.

You should work on this more, and figure out what you believe in or not.  What you have here is just an intellectual cop-out.

The whole traditional anti-commie artifacts will be long gone.

Not until we have been cured of the infection of communism.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Carrick,

Making reference to sparkless-arse-fuckin-buckle and “intellectual” in the same sentence absent a negative is rather a stretch, don’t you think?

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Sparkie, I don’t have too much time to go into the tenants behind an objective basis for morality, but it exists not the less.  The same is true (and is a related statement) that there is an objective basis to science.

The fact is no statement in empirical science can be proven true beyond any possible doubt, yet there are true statements.  Empirical science is the process by which we beat around in the bushes, over time getting closer and closer to the “real” real.

The same is true for morality. For a given moral equation, there is objectively a best possible outcome and a worse possible outcome.  The “best” outcome is the one that does the most good and the worst is the one that does the most harm (by some measure).  What I’ve left intentionally ambiguous is the whom the good/harm is being done for/to. So morality thought about this way depends on the context in which it is being applied.

What we might do if we need only consider ourselves if very different than what we might do if a group of people are similarly affected by the action.  Put another way, an act of morality for an individual is different than the act of morality for a group (or a nation, or a planet).  This for example is why Jimmy Carter was a terrible president:  He conflated what was right for him to do (in his case, I am convince, what was “right” is what “felt good” to do), with what was right/necessary to do for the common good of the country.

Thus you as an individual probably wouldn’t send 3000 soldiers to their death to protect you.  But you might send the same number if the lives of all Americans were similarly threatened.  That’s an example of a moral equation/dilemma that has a definite right answer and wrong answer to.

Briefly how one determines analytically what is the best approach to take is mostly an experiential one (what has worked in the past, the historical approach).  Generalizations of moral outcomes from a particular action to be our “code of ethics”, part of which is codified e.g., in our Judeo-Christian belief system, part of which is passed on as “lore”.

As time passes on, our ethics becomes more and more refined and our ability to predict the outcome from a particular choice gets better.  However, an act may always simultaneously be moral and unethical or immoral and ethical.

Pretty much this is the same thing that happens in physics:  As we push our knowledge base further with new experiments, we always find “warts” in our existing theories.  These don’t overthrow our original theories, they just get refined with the new knowledge.

I think the same thing happens with ethics.  Older theories of ethics get replaced with new, more refined ones, but the foundations of the old ideas don’t get tossed out, they just get tweaked.

This happens to be the basis for moral conservatism by the way:  We mostly have things right in our ethics, but we recognize a need for flexibility as new circumstances unforeseen by our ancestors arise.  And so forth (out of time)…

The bottom line is that moral relativism is every bit as wrong as social relativism applied to science.  It is just an excuse for not doing the hard work of figuring out what your best moral option is given a particular moral dilemma.  There is an absolute framework for defining good and evil, it will never be known exactly, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or that we shouldn’t strive to realize it.

We help fund the Phillipines military. Individuals within the Philippines military commit atrocities.

Therefore the US is guilty of funding atrocities.

Yea. Quite a stretch, eh? To make it a bit more direct: Our troops are in the Philippines, fighting. Now.

Also, I’ve noticed that you left he tenets of your moral absolutism out? What gives? If you make with the bluster, make with the content.

What you have here is just an intellectual cop-out.

The jury is out, friend. You accuse me of a cop out but merely armwave about this morality you have tuned in to.

Basically in the next election we are going to decide whether we want to be VICTIMS (secular progressive) or proactive (conservative) I don’t want to be appeasers nor do I want to go back to fighting terrorism like it was a law enforcement issue.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

If you make with the bluster, make with the content.

hadnt refreshed page recently. response in the pipes.

More bow down and submit to Islam shit. Nothing new.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Try again Sparkie.  Either give me examples of atrocities committed by American troops, or shut it up.  Right now you’re just spittin’ nonsense.,

carrick you originally asked for proof of US terror funding. now you ask for direct atrocites. keep moving the goal posts.

kitty. you know i love to bow to religious tarts. given my track record for coddling the wildly religious. give me a fucking break.

I already established that they weren’t funding terrorism in the Philippines.  You moved the target to US involvement in military operations.  I simply asked you to demonstrate that there was anything germane to this topic there.

Instead of responding to the inquiry, you simply accused me of being guilty of a crime you yourself committed.

Also, I’ve noticed that you left he tenets of your moral absolutism out? What gives? If you make with the bluster, make with the content.

LOL.  The only one blustering here is you ole bubba.

You asked me about the existence of an objective morality, and I discussed briefly the concept.  What my personal beliefs are is irrelevant.

Tenets or beliefs play no role in what is true: If a thing is true, it is true regardless of whether you believe it to be true or not.

You accuse me of a cop out but merely armwave about this morality you have tuned in to.

Hardly an arm wave, but I expected you to hide behind your cynicism, which I’ve noted before is nothing more than a virulent form intellectual laziness exercised by most liberals these days.