[Winstonm]

mike777, on Mar 7 2007, 01:49 AM, said:

If only the neocons...conned us into war ok
Where is the middle, where is the left?  How many against Afghanistan in 2001? how many in 2007?  I asked this before with no response, why are in a civil war in 2007 in afghanistan and yet no one, not one pres. candidate says pull out and pull out now?  What do they know that we do not?

okokokok you guys think  we are in a fake, phony, fabricated wWAR on terror.

Thank God we can have an election every 4 years for a new executive leader, if the current one sucks...errr is sick....

edit:

Next 100 years? errr...I am one the one that posts that some AI will be billions and billions of times greater in Int. than the entire human race by 2050 and trillions by 2100

Mike,

In response to your questions about the Senators, I was told, again by an Army Colonel, that the Senators heard the same briefings as did the president, so if they are not outspoken it may be that they feel there is a valid justification for being in Afghanistan.

At the same time, I am concerned that information of this type can be skewed to bias a certain cause; however, by law, dissenting views must also be entered. It comes down to a decision as to which view is judged right, based on the evidence presented.

I am of the opinion that this information can be to a degree controlled, as the CIA falls under the executive branch - I'm not so sure how difficult it would be to embellish some information and deephasize other to make one side of the case look more appealing. But I would believe that if the president, vice-president, and secretary of defense wanted to go to war that the appropriate agencies would find ways to prove a case for war and find ways to either ignore or disparage dissenting information.

Such is the hallmark of power, IMO.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Mar 6 2007, 09:40 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 6 2006, 08:25 AM, said:

Quote

I have already done this with luke warm. I no longer respond to his posts, based on a posting he made with respect to Iran:

Quote

"i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die, with shitloads of cattle and virgins waiting for them"

it's true, i said that... and i do think you underestimate the actions of those who believe that if they strap 100 pounds of explosives to their bodies and blow up a synagogue, willy nilly killing anyone who happens to be in proximity, they will go straight to heaven, with the aforementioned rewards

i do not see the inaccuracy in what i said

I grant that there are some who suicide bomb based on the stated beliefs. What makes this group different from the Jones followers who drank the Kool Aid, the Dividians who cremated themselves, or the Crusaders bringing Christianity to the heathen world? Did not the Japanese at the end of the war fly kamikaze missions? We are talking about a small minority of Islam - this is not a global religious war, our good guy religion verses their evil religion.

let's grant for the sake of argument that your examples are equivalent to mine as acts of terror... does that mean that my quote, "i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die, with shitloads of cattle and virgins waiting for them," is in error? what if i'd said, "i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die if they liberate the holy land from the muslims, regardless of the innocents killed in their holy war?"

what i wrote is either valid or it isn't... one can be offended and igonre posts regardless of the validiy of the point being made, of course, but i think you'll agree that it seems slightly hypocritical when the one doing so seems to get such enjoyment from his own brand of offensive posts

[pbleighton]

"Ya I confuse easy, I thought this thread was called the middle east too."

Well, I thought that this:

"If only the neocons...conned us into war ok"

was a reference to Iraq, and this:

Where is the middle, where is the left? How many against Afghanistan in 2001? how many in 2007?"

was about Afghanistan.

But the one is right after the other, so it seems like you are talking about the same war!

Pardon my confusion

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

let's grant for the sake of argument that your examples are equivalent to mine as acts of terror... does that mean that my quote, "i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die, with shitloads of cattle and virgins waiting for them," is in error? what if i'd said, "i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die if they liberate the holy land from the muslims, regardless of the innocents killed in their holy war?"

Jimmy, I was too lazy to cut and paste so simply used "quote" function - Peter is entitled to his opinions but I was simply trying to answer your original post.

I was not attempting to compare the actions of one group to another, so whether Jim Jones's clan were terrorists or not is immaterial to my point - what I am comparing is belief systems that lead to radical behavior. In that sense the type of radical behavior is irrelevant - the similarities in the beliefs is crucial.

So in a sense I agree with you that to understand the religious nature of the enemy is relevant due to need to understand the groups hierarchy and how the leaders influence the group, but that they specifically suicide bomb is not really relevant.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Mar 7 2007, 07:12 PM, said:

So in a sense I agree with you that to understand the religious nature of the enemy is relevant due to need to understand the groups hierarchy and how the leaders influence the group, but that they specifically suicide bomb is not really relevant.

yes, of course it's relevant... any group that commits atrocities with a view toward some eternal reward must be understood in order to combat it... that assumes it's possible to combat

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Mar 8 2007, 06:48 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 7 2007, 07:12 PM, said:

So in a sense I agree with you that to understand the religious nature of the enemy is relevant due to need to understand the groups hierarchy and how the leaders influence the group, but that they specifically suicide bomb is not really relevant.

yes, of course it's relevant... any group that commits atrocities with a view toward some eternal reward must be understood in order to combat it... that assumes it's possible to combat

You are making a statement of your beliefs without any accompanying justification. To simply say it is relevant does not add to an understading of the reasons you believe it relevant.

I would argue that there is no difference among Charles Manson and his followers, David Koresh and his followers, and Osama bin Laden and his followers other than the size of the group in the last case can cause more harm - but that is due simply to size of group and not differences in beliefs.

If you believe there are differences among my three examples, how do you then explain moderate Islam? If there are at least as many moderate Islamists as there are radical Islamists the only rational explanation for the difference is in what they are taught - from the same book; teachings and influences are the province of the leaders of the groups.

The followers are the same, whether they follow Manson, Koresh, Jones, or bin Laden. Manson followers killed. Koresh's followers killed. Jones's followers killed. The fact that they killed in a different method than bin Laden's does not to me make any difference.

What is your reason to think differently?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Mar 8 2007, 08:38 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 8 2007, 06:48 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 7 2007, 07:12 PM, said:

So in a sense I agree with you that to understand the religious nature of the enemy is relevant due to need to understand the groups hierarchy and how the leaders influence the group, but that they specifically suicide bomb is not really relevant.

yes, of course it's relevant... any group that commits atrocities with a view toward some eternal reward must be understood in order to combat it... that assumes it's possible to combat

You are making a statement of your beliefs without any accompanying justification.

it's true, i wasn't attempting to justify what i said and i'm surprised you'd object to that since i viewed it as a basic agreement with your (also unjustified) statement that "... I agree with you that to understand the religious nature of the enemy is relevant..."

Quote

I would argue that there is no difference among Charles Manson and his followers, David Koresh and his followers, and Osama bin Laden and his followers other than the size of the group in the last case can cause more harm - but that is due simply to size of group and not differences in beliefs.

i find this strange since in your earlier post you said, "I was not attempting to compare the actions of one group to another, so whether Jim Jones's clan were terrorists or not is immaterial to my point..." it seems you are now saying there is no difference (a comparison) while earlier denying any such comparison... in any case, it's my opinion that there are glaring differences between the groups, having mainly to do with motive..

charles manson was a psychopath who killed for the sheer thrill of it... he would not be a terrorist according to my definition (and remember, we had a whole thread on that - since imo nobody really stepped forward with a more acceptable one, i still use mine), since he wasn't interested in changing a nation or nations to his beliefs... david koresh was a self-proclaimed messiah who lived with his followers in relative solitude and peace, until the govenment got overinvolved... i wouldn't consider him a terrorist for the same reason... while he might have been happy to convert the rest of us, he didn't kill indiscriminately to do so... bin laden fits my definition, so there is (in my mind) a huge difference

Quote

If you believe there are differences among my three examples, how do you then explain moderate Islam?  If there are at least as many moderate Islamists as there are radical Islamists the only rational explanation for the difference is in what they are taught - from the same book; teachings and influences are the province of the leaders of the groups.

i explain moderate islam by saying islam is generally considered a religion of peace whose message has been perverted by an error introduced into its teachings... the same way i explain "moderate" christianity when comparing it to, for example, the crusades... so yes, what they are taught (and believe) is a rational explanation though possibly not the only one... however, that in no way means that bin laden is any less a terrorist

Quote

Manson followers killed.  Koresh's followers killed.  Jones's followers killed.  The fact that they killed in a different method than bin Laden's does not to me make any difference.

you focus on the method and not the motive, and that seems to imply motive plays no part... you are free to define "terrorist" any way you want, but i've given my reasons why i differentiate between those groups... you'll have to formulate your own definition of terrorism, one that would include all those people/groups you mentioned

[Winstonm]

Quote

you focus on the method and not the motive, and that seems to imply motive plays no part... you are free to define "terrorist" any way you want, but i've given my reasons why i differentiate between those groups... you'll have to formulate your own definition of terrorism, one that would include all those people/groups you mentioned

Sorry, Jimmy, we seem to be speaking different languages and that is surely my fault for not clarifying.

What I am stressing is not the actions but the thinking within the groups, the psychology of control.

What I am saying is that if one of these lower-rung bin Laden followers found himself stranded and forced to live alone in London, and could not find the rest of his group, that he would not on his own volition - because of his personal beliefs in virgins and camels in heaven - decide to tie a bomb to his back and go blow himself up in a crowded cafe.

These types are directed to actions - they do not think independently. And that is what makes them the same as followers of Manson, Koresh, and Jones.

That's why I agreed that understanding the psychology of mass cultism (or religion as you put it) is important, but the fact that these people use suicide bombing as a weapon is not relevant. If bin Laden had sent them out small groups in the middle of the night to stab to death 100 Hollywood starlets, the only difference between them and Manson would be the number of dead.

Whether or not Manson was pychologically sick is not the issue - it is the fact that his followers believed him to somehow be their superior and gave themselves over to his control - the followers of bin Laden or any other of the leaders of religious based terror groups are no different - they believe their leaders are superior in religious knowledge and give themselves up to their control.

Tactics are just tactics; dead is dead.

[Al_U_Card]

I gather that the progress that W was referring to is the attempt to have all Iraqis dead by 2027, at their own hands, if possible?

[hrothgar]

keylime, on Jul 4 2006, 09:50 AM, said:

From the 18th to the 20th of July this month, there will be a huge happening involving Christians who support Israel here in D.C., ran by Pastor John Hagee's ministry. I for one will be there.

Quite amused to note that the media is finally starting to take a close look at Pastor Hagee after McCain stated that he was honored to be endorsed by Hagee

Salon has pretty good coverage

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...agee/index.html

[kenberg]

As with so much else that I read about on the Forum, I had never heard of this guy. I went to the YouTube clip that Salon linked to and here is this guy pointing to a statue of a dragon and talking about "This is the Great Whore of Revelation 17". From my viewpoint he was too incoherent to be taken seriously. Maybe he was being anti-Catholic, but the reference is too obscure for me. Or he may be anti-whore. Or anti-dragon. There are people who listen to this crap? I guess they see the world differently than I do.

If successful politics involves paying serious attention to this nut job I am very happy to have never entered the arena.

[Winstonm]

Quote

If successful politics involves paying serious attention to this nut job

Unfortunately, it is worse than paying serious attention - these types have influence over government policies. You should do a little internet research on influence in the U.S. military by these types, as well as the Bush connections to these armageddonists who believe they have a divine right to rule - the are termed Dominionists because they believe the bible grants them dominion over the earth.

[Al_U_Card]

They are all pretty much the same (Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Robert Shuler Jr., Oral Roberts Jr.) these members of the PTL (Is that praise the Lord, or pass the loot) franchises.

If you took the word "god" ,in its many forms, out of their speils, they would be snake-oil salesmen. They do have a lot of influence because of the "fear of god" that so many people have instilled in them from birth.

If one ever came forward and proclaimed:

"Take care of yourselves and your loved ones."
"Use your money wisely and to create more well-being than suffering."
"Respect others and listen to them as best you can."
"Try not to do harm as you proceed through life."
"DON'T waste your time and money on me, as I am taking care of myself."

Well then, by God, I might just agree with him.

[jdeegan]

A blood feud that has gone on longer than I have been alive - and that's a pretty long time. Keep at it boys! The rest of the world needs the comic relief.