Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 21, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






American Catch


Truthdig Bazaar
Mandate Of Heaven

Mandate Of Heaven

By Orville Schell

more items

 
Report

Terrorism by Any Name

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 21, 2010
Austin IRS office
AP / Tony Gutierrez

The building in Austin, Texas, that was hit last Thursday by an airplane piloted by A. Joseph Stack III.  The structure housed an office of the Internal Revenue Service, one of the targets of a manifesto left by Stack.

By Marcia Alesan Dawkins

“Nothing changes unless there’s a body count,” according to A. Joseph Stack III. On Thursday, Stack, 53, posted a suicide note on the Internet, burned down his house in Austin, Texas, and then flew a Piper Cherokee PA-28 into an IRS office, killing both himself and IRS employee Vernon Hunter and wounding 13 others. More and more is being revealed about Stack’s life story, including his rage and hatred for the IRS, the federal government and the Catholic Church. In the six-page manifesto that he posted he rails against many entities, including the American justice and educational systems, claiming they create a false sense of security and financial entitlement. 

Perhaps nothing is as direct as his closing: “Well Mr. Big Brother IRS man … take my pound of flesh and sleep well.” Speculation abounds. ‘‘I don’t know what to base his madness on. It must have been lurking beneath the surface,’’ Michael Cerza said in a New York Times interview. Cerza played drums, piano and trumpet with Stack in the Billy Eli Band.

But what’s as interesting as Stack’s motives are our motives in labeling this act. Was Stack’s gesture an attention-grabbing suicide plot, a deliberate criminal act, an act of heroism or an act of terrorism? It seems that the answer varies according to whom we ask. Stack’s friends and neighbors are stunned because he never discussed his anti-government feelings with them. They’re calling it suicide. 

Some of his Facebook fans are calling it heroism. “Finally an American man took a stand against our tyrannical government that no longer follows the Constitution,” wrote Emily Walters of Louisville, Ky. Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “… we don’t suspect that [foreign terrorism]. I am going to wait, though, for all the situation to play out through investigation before we determine what to label it.”

For his part, Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, expressed a different perspective. Awad noted that “whenever an individual or group attacks civilians in order to make a political statement, that is an act of terror. Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the faith, race or ethnicity of the perpetrator or the victims.” 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Awad’s description is in line with federal policy. According to Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52), a person engages in domestic terrorism if he or she does something that is “dangerous to human life that [is] a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; [if the act appears] to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. … [Also, the acts have to] occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” If they do not, they may be regarded as international terrorism. In other words, if an act is intended to strike with fear those against whom it is adopted and/or uses methods of intimidation (like flying a plane into a building housing a federal office) then it’s safe to call it terrorism. So, why the hesitation? 

A look at some other similar acts and U.S. code on terrorism sheds light on the issue. Stack is clearly not the only angry American to lash out in recent history. The Southern Poverty Law Center found six cases of attacks targeting the Internal Revenue Service since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Americans seem to be angry about more than taxation and representation as the June 2009 incident at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., reveals. In that incident, white supremacist James von Brunn killed a security guard and injured two other people. Von Brunn’s attack happened on the heels of the shocking February murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in a Wichita, Kan., church. Why haven’t these been labeled acts of terror? Might it have something to do with the fact that the U.S. Code definition of terrorism is limited to “subnational groups” or “clandestine agents”? Could this mean that some Americans are excluded from suspicion?

Hebah Farrag of the University of Southern California’s Center for Religion and Civic Culture says the answer, in short, is yes. “Had this act been committed by a man of a different color or religion the reports would have been cast in a much different light.” Farrag is also disturbed by sympathetic coverage of Stack compared to coverage of 9/11 hijackers and other assailants of Arab descent and/or Muslim faith. For Farrag “this double standard, obvious racism and bias in reporting is not only damaging, it is alienating. As a Muslim-American, while I am not surprised by this style of reporting, I am appalled, disappointed and feeling ever more alienated by a nation that seems to condone violence from certain elements of society which it considers to be acceptable and explainable.”

David Hino, pastor of The Light Christian Fellowship in Signal Hill, Ca agrees. Noting the strong opinion in some religious circles that Islam and the Koran support violence and murder to convert others, he says that “Islamic extremists are called terrorists.  Muslims are not and should not be.” Comparing religious traditions, Hino explains that “in the Christian Bible, the Old Testament is filled with stories of violent elimination of nations as the Hebrews conquered the promised land. Given that same reasoning, right-wing extremists who advocate violence against the government are also terrorists. People who have a belief system that calls for killing people are terrorists.” For Hino and Farrag there should be no differential labeling or double standard.

Farrag’s and Hino’s views are supported when we look at the case of Maj. Nidal Hasan, who killed 12 people in November 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas. Hasan was immediately suspected of having links with Islamic extremism and terrorism. FBI agents investigated his family background and immigration history, and his alleged connection with Anwar al-Aulaqi, a radical imam at Dar al-Hijrah mosque, where at least two of the September 11 hijackers are said to have worshipped. It appears as though Hasan was quickly considered a terrorist for being disgruntled with the Army. Though his actions are no less inexcusable than Stack’s, Hasan did not get the same benefit of the doubt that Stack appears to be receiving.

Farrag went on to explain that Stack’s action is “clearly an act of terrorism, especially if reports on his suicide note are correct in which he states that ‘violence is the answer.’  While the media is consistently reporting this as an act by a ‘mentally ill’ and ‘disgruntled’ employee during a time of economic crisis, clearly this was a man who wanted to attack an arm of the U.S. government as well as American economic policy.”

According to Stack’s own note, the attack was not about his suicide. It was about anger. Hino says that after reading Stack’s manifesto it’s clear that his “belief system is only an outward expression of a greater problem that is rarely addressed—the anger or character of the person. We fail to see the anger of the person because we do not question it. We, the audience and public, see and/or think that the anger is justified.” This could account for the hesitation in labeling Stack a terrorist. 

If Farrag and Hino are right, then Stack’s attack was as much about anger as it was about channeling anger into a set of beliefs that justified his assault on the U.S. government. After all, Stack was not using the plane as a flying mechanism; he was using it as a weapon. In light of this it can be argued that to call him a “pilot” is giving him an innocence he does not deserve. Perhaps we have not been willing to call this an act of terror because that label generally connotes “Arab” or “Muslim” or “foreign” or “angry radical” in the public mind. Perhaps calling Stack’s attack an act of terrorism, thereby putting the label of terrorist on a white, non-Muslim American, might take away from the fear of “terrorists” our nation is cultivating in its efforts to marginalize the Middle East and Muslims. Perhaps calling Stack’s act an act of terrorism is more terrifying than the act itself.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 6, 2010 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

Unknown is where divinity hides don’t you know?
As for the soul it is problematical and not
necessarily of the occult. It could
be found to be a natural component of
us just in a particle energetic form.
((In the novel “2012” Whitley Strieber
handles it as a form of electron cloud that is
part of the body but can exist independent
of it.))

There is String hypotheses and also
Membrane hypotheses which tells us
that there are membranes of energy of
the same type as of the Super Strings.
But likewise there is nothing as yet
that can give us demonstrable proof of
their existence. To a Goddist it can be
either nonsense or just the architecture
of the Great Architect of the Universe.

With the idea of a Heaven and Hell
(a recent concept) the idea of an
immortal soul is something they
look forward
to and are less fearful,
generally, of death.
I know death is natural
but you won’t find me embracing it.

It makes it easier for terrorists,
or freedom fighters (chose a side),
to sacrifice their
lives in order to obtain an
outcome of their choosing.
Which makes them many times for
dangerous to stop. Now if you have the
kind of fire power the USA has
the ones usually sacrificed are the
other people in the line of fire
in the FFKZ.*

*Free Fire Kill Zone

To me one of the examples of an
advanced civilization is the
general conquest of death. Or at
least death has to “work” for its
means so-to-speak.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 3, 2010 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment

ardee, April 3 at 5:28 am #

Inherit The Wind, April 1 at 7:25 am

Your opinion of me affects me not at all. You are a narrow and sad little fellow who has a tunnel vision view of American politics and derides everyone and anyone who disagrees or offers a differing point of view. Ignore me as you choose, I will continue to post with honest intent , and you will not.
********************************

Too bad for you. You’ve fallen into the TD3 hole of making assertions without supporting them, then looking down your nose and insulting anyone who dares question them.

I wish I was littler—by about 30 lbs. As for honesty—people who live in glass houses have no business throwing stones.

My advice: When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Report this

By ardee, April 3, 2010 at 2:28 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, April 1 at 7:25 am

Your opinion of me affects me not at all. You are a narrow and sad little fellow who has a tunnel vision view of American politics and derides everyone and anyone who disagrees or offers a differing point of view. Ignore me as you choose, I will continue to post with honest intent , and you will not.

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, April 2, 2010 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment

“By MarthaA, April 2 at 12:13 am #

You need to thoroughly investigate the String Theory.”

MarthaA you have a very good point on your previous proposition. I just realized I don’t exist and neither do you. Modern technology has worked it out where two computers can argue and debate with each other. Only our computers exist. Now you may argue that you really do exist, I’ll argue for you to send me money and pray to me.

String theory doesn’t prove that your god exists MarthaA. The flaw in your line of thinking is to apply divinity to the unknown, the fantastic and things that you don’t understand. Because there is an unknown, because something may be so fantastic or you don’t understand it doesn’t make the conclusion of an existence of god logical and rational.

Look, you’re not going convince me nor am I going to convince you. My truth in this respect has been within me ever since I had consciousness. So all the brainwashing and indoctrination didn’t work on me the way it may have worked with you. Some argue that people may be born with a god gene, a characteristic remaining from our most primal existence when homo sapiens did not understand the phenomena of the world around them. In my opinion the lack of the evolutionary development in some people. So the lack of your brain to evolve the capacity of rational and logical thinking in the realm of reality may indicate that my brain is probably more evolved than yours. So this is really a senseless and wasteful argument. You will not convince me of your version of a god based on the bible.

Now if I’m going to delve into the spiritual to any depth I would be more apt to rationalize the precepts of a great mind as was that of Einstein, not that of the hallucinogenic ramblings of Iron Age biblical mystics still trying to understand the world thousands of years ago. Here is some food for thought since you seem to be into the spiritual.

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein )

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 2, 2010 at 5:05 pm Link to this comment

Yeah, the problem with string theory, as I understand it, is that it answers lots of questions…but has no testable hypotheses to prove or disprove it in Nature.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 1, 2010 at 9:13 pm Link to this comment

jay1953, March 31 at 10:57 am,

You need to thoroughly investigate the String Theory.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 1, 2010 at 4:25 am Link to this comment

ardee, April 1 at 5:37 am #

Inherit The Wind, March 31 at 9:14 pm

“Little” refers to your soul ,sadly.
***************************************

I’m Agnostic.  I don’t accept that concept as supported that we have a “soul”.

What you call “little” simply means you’re pissed-off that I don’t agree with your particular tunnel-vision unsupported opinions and respond to personal insults in-kind.

I had a great deal of respect for you. I’ve lost it, all of it. I’m going to try to waste as little time on you going forward as possible.

Welcome to “The Contingent”. You’ll fit right in.

Report this

By ardee, April 1, 2010 at 2:37 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, March 31 at 9:14 pm

“Little” refers to your soul ,sadly.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 31, 2010 at 6:14 pm Link to this comment

ardee, March 30 at 5:30 pm #

Inherit The Wind, March 25 at 8:42 pm

My, what a humorless and prickly little man you become.
*******************************************
Nah, I’m still over 215!

But NOW I’m having a belly laugh! Almost a spit-take, even!  Check the mirror and your psych dictionary for the definition of “Projection”.

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 31, 2010 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

“By MarthaA, March 30 at 12:54 pm #


jay1953, March 26 at 10:08 am,

As to whether or not you scientifically exist, nothing you have said proves you exist.”

Martha, like your belief in god is absurd so is your argument. I don’t expect any less from from you.

Report this

By ardee, March 30, 2010 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, March 25 at 8:42 pm

My, what a humorless and prickly little man you become.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 30, 2010 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

jay1953, March 26 at 10:08 am,

As to whether or not you scientifically exist, nothing you have said proves you exist.

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 26, 2010 at 7:08 am Link to this comment

By MarthaA, March 26 at 12:11 am #


jay1953, March 24 at 1:02 pm,

Not so.


Oh! okay. I guess that settles that.

So you’re in a total state of denial and prefer to base your arguments on superstition and the hallucinogenic blathering of Iron Age mystics. You can’t argue against reason and common sense MarthaA.

Virgin births, resurrections from the dead, ascensions into the skies, talking snakes, the list goes on. Give me a break MarthaA. You need reality based arguments, not mythology.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 25, 2010 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment

jay1953, March 24 at 1:02 pm,

Not so.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 25, 2010 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

ardee, March 25 at 7:47 pm #

Inherit The Wind, March 25 at 6:58 am

Oh like you never…....Give me an H, give me a Y, give me a P, give me an O, give me a C…well you get the gist.
*********************************

“You did it first!”
“Did not!”
“Did so!”
“Not!”
“So!”

I guess everything you needed to know you didn’t learn in kindergarten…too bad!

Report this

By ardee, March 25, 2010 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, March 25 at 6:58 am

Oh like you never…....Give me an H, give me a Y, give me a P, give me an O, give me a C…well you get the gist.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 25, 2010 at 3:58 am Link to this comment

Ardee:

It’s sad to see you, who is actually bright and capable of debate, descend into Truthdig3 and Robert-level name-calling.

Shingo is a far better model than those two.

Report this

By ardee, March 25, 2010 at 2:36 am Link to this comment

jay1953, March 23 at 11:23 pm #

MarthaA

You sound delusional.

Get help, fast!

You are learning!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 24, 2010 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

Martha,
Your metaphysical questions are lost on me.

Only this one is clear:

If a husband is alone in the forest is he still wrong?

(to which my wife, PhD and all insists “YES!!!”—but with a big smile when she says it!)

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 24, 2010 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

MarthaA, March 24 at 12:00 am #


, March 23 at 11:23 pm,

MarthaA: Do you really exist?

jay1953: Yes, I really do exist.

MarthaA: How do you really know you exist?

jay1953: I can just look in a mirror.

MarthaA: Can you scientifically prove your own existence?

jay1953: No need to. It’s a material fact.

On the other hand a god’s existence is not a given. It is only an affirmation of faith, indoctrination and brainwashing. Belief is not proof. You really don’t know that a god exists since it is only a figment of your imagination. Gods are not a material fact.

Does Santa Claus exist?

How do you know if he exists or not?

Can you prove his existence or non existence?

See believing in a god is like believing in Santa Claus. Only with Santa Claus you find out it was a hoax, with a god the hoax is perpetuated.

Look arguing about a god is stupid. You can’t argue about something that doesn’t exist. Proving it or disproving the existence of a god is like proving or disproving belief in Santa Claus or flying spaghetti monsters. It is all in your mind. Don’t be such an annoying waste of time. Keep your delusions to yourself. I’m the last person interested in the stupidity of the bible.

By the way Pascal’s wager totally flew over your head. You didn’t even grasp the absurdity of it. How can you be so clueless?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 23, 2010 at 9:00 pm Link to this comment

jay1953, March 23 at 11:23 pm,

Do you really exist? How do you really know you exist? Can you scientifically prove your own existence?

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 23, 2010 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA

You sound delusional.

Get help, fast!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 23, 2010 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

nemesis2010 3/14 2:39pm,

Circumcision isn’t mutilation.  I agree with circumcision, if you’re talking about circumcision of male infants at birth; that, to my knowledge, is done by all hospitals in the United States.

As for genital mutilation of infant girls, that’s the crazy stuff that would be up Glenn Beck’s alley.  Genital mutilation of infant girls is something I could imagine being done by a Glenn Beck type conservative personality, but I can not imagine anyone other than a Glenn Beck type conservative personality mutilating the genitals of an infant girl.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 23, 2010 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, March 14 at 9:26 pm,

I did not know about Pascal’s Wager, but from what I have read on wikipedia, which says, “Historically, Pascal’s Wager was groundbreaking as it had charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.”  Therefore, Pascal seems to have had some wisdom in his old age.

You are supposing, so in supposing, lets suppose a few more things:

Suppose Capitalism isn’t a Ponzi Scheme, does that make it less a Ponzi Scheme?

Suppose Conservative Right-Wingers aren’t always trying to loot the treasury with financialization schemes, does that make it less of a chance that Right-Wing Conservatives will not loot the treasury? 

Suppose Democrats represent Populace Democracy instead of Corporate Democracy, will that make the populace be represented?

Suppose Heaven doesn’t exist, does that make Heaven not exist?

Heaven is a subjective reality in this dimension,  but mother saw angels two times before she died and told us about it.  I am of the opinion that there is eternal life after death and that I will see all my family and friends that died in Christ.  I have no doubt that death will present an objective reality in another dimension and that there will be a judgment for each of us based upon what we did or didn’t do throughout our life on earth.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 23, 2010 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

Jay1953 3/14 1:43am and 1:58am,

God is.  No one can come to Jesus, who is God, except by the Spirit of God, so it is not my duty to argue with you.  In no way can arguing make you come to God.

You say you don’t blame God and continue blaming God, even though you say God doesn’t exist.  There will always be demagogues, who use God, which does not make God less God. People who believe in God are not the problem.  The problem comes from those who do not really believe or are heavily deceived, and use God for their gain, because if they really had an open spirit of God in them, they would be unable to do the evil that they do.

You have listed me with all the ossified Rupert Murdoch paid Glenn Beck type Conservative hyperbole Christians who love to accuse, denigrate, denounce, malign, traduce, slur, smear and kill humankind, but that is not me.  I am a social justice Christian who believes in the words of Jesus and God’s 10 Commandments that God said, “Thou shall not kill”.  Killing should only be done in self defense when a wounding alternative fails.  One should not even kill animals unless in self defense or for food; and one should never bear false witness in any way.  I am of the opinion that it is murder when a cop kills, instead of wounds, a running person that is trying to keep from getting caught.

God exists and God does care.  If you had done everything Jesus did because God cares for mankind, what would you think when someone like you says God doesn’t care or doesn’t even exist? 

People say Hitler is in Hell, but I doubt it.  Hell is open.  Jesus took the keys.  Hitler is waiting for the judgment.  We know what Hitler did, and it seems like he should be in Hell, for what he did, but only God knows his heart and can make that judgment.  Hitler took his own life, and the lives of many, many thousands of people, but believed in God enough to get married to his girlfriend prior to their death, so who knows how Hitler will be treated in immortal life; that is strictly up to God.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 18, 2010 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

Nemesis (a.k.a. Angry loser)

You have exposed yourself.

Here’s some manly advice. Put it back in your pants, before people recognize you as being a perverted lunatic (Loony.)

(Incidentally, I’ve never used Heroine.)

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 15, 2010 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

By the way I’m out of here unless my heroine come back to do another number on you.

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 15, 2010 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis,

you are so silly. I mean really silly. You’ve acting like a pesky little fly throughout this thread.

Well, I’m glad you seem to be toning down your hysteria. Cause by your words I perceived that you were getting quite hysterical. Right, only a woman can do that to a man. So Mystic must be a man. But don’t worry I’m not a woman so I won’t perturb you the way Mystic did. Maybe you’re right, Mystic may be a woman and that’s why you got so bent out of shape. If Mystic is in fact a woman it can only mean that you’re either p*ssywhipped or henpecked, or both. Mystic had you going. You probably can’t talk back to your hen cause she’ll put you in your place. So maybe that’s why you come in here like a castrated bull to blow off some steam. And if Mystic is a woman, so what? She wupped ya!

You kind of remind me of my soon to be ex-business partner. Now that’s one henpecked puppy. He’s got his mother, his wife, his ex-wife, his two daughters and 2 granddaughters. Talk about having being emasculated. I can’t stand it, and its not my life its his. I can’t wait to get rid of his dumb ass. I don’t wish his life on anybody. But you do kind of remind me of him.

And whether you acknowledge it or not you were in a contest. Everything is a contest. Like I said you came up a loser for the purposes of this contest. And if I’m going to kiss anybody’s ass I’d rather it be a woman. It gets me a lot further.

Everything else in your response to my previous post I have addressed and don’t see a need to repeat myself and will avoid being redundant.

As far as your apology there is no need for one. I’m only offended by those that I allow to offend me. I don’t remember ever giving you that permission. Why, that would make you important to me and I assure you that you are not. Without doubt I’m sure you feel the same way.

Cheers

Report this

By nemesis2010, March 15, 2010 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment

@ jay1953:


I haven’t lost anything because I never joined any contest. I simply made comments and took a stand contrary to that of your heroine. Apparently there are some here that consider that a great trespass. If you’re waiting for me to come here singing Kumbaya you’re going to be waiting a very long time.


Unlike your heroine I have presented evidence to back my position and that evidence is no less than the whole of human history. Your heroine’s defense has been one of personal incredulity which is neither evidence nor a defense. And please, don’t insult me further by thinking that because I chose to ignore most of what she said that I was unable to respond and rip it, but as the saying goes: “when you argue with a fool make sure that he isn’t doing the same thing.” The real shame here is that you and others may have learned of another way to look at politics besides left vs. right. But all is not lost, as recompense you got to read your heroine’s farraginous and condescending nonsense. And it’s not like the whole world sits in amazement at how dumbed-down and myopic the American people have become. 


From the beginning my contention has been that one should fully inform people of the possible consequences that their actions demanding change from the State might bring; especially the type of actions that were being inferred before “The Great Toning Down of the Rhetoric” began. Apparently to some here there’s but a fine line of distinction between taking a position that people should be fully informed and consider well their actions before taking them and encouraging people not to act. As I’m sure you realize there’s a gulf separating those two positions and that point of view would be a false dichotomy fallacy.


I’m not being facetious by having switched to the feminine when referring to JD because I have suspected from the beginning that JD was a female. That last post (Saturday?) convinced me that JD is female because only a female can use that many words and say absolutely nothing. (As any husband can confirm when his wife isn’t around.)


My having been in the Marines is not a “claim,” it’s a truth, and it only matters in that it gives me a different perspective on certain topics that we have touched upon. Multimillions of young men have joined the Marine Corps and anyone can do it if you’re of a mind to. Just sign on the line and take a physical that you really have to want to fail in order not to pass.

I’m sorry if I’ve offended you, but if you insist on running around barking like a little Chihuahua that’s the impression others will have of you. Such self-deprecation is totally unnecessary as your comments demonstrate that you are more than capable of holding your own. The words I used were carefully chosen and not nerdy. They relay the message perfectly and make it clear that whether or not you are perceived as a toady is entirely up to you. I trust you’ll make the right choice.

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 14, 2010 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment

Rewards are reaped during life as is punishment. That is enough motivation to live whithin an ethical and moral code.

Morality wasn’t invented by religion, rather religion hijacked morality. Survival of the species is the origin of the codes we live by. All species have their own codes of survival, mating and selection of a mate.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 14, 2010 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA, March 13 at 7:53 pm #

nemesis2010, March 11 at 2:23 pm,

Part 2 of 2

If the Holy Bible is just a glorious hoax, and we die like flies, then one has lost nothing, because the teachings are above reproach; but if it is truth, as I am convinced it is, then in death one receives everlasting life and has forever gained everything there is to gain in the everlasting world to come where water is alive.  Accepting Jesus’ death and resurrection as my living Savior who died for me appears to be a win/win situation that I accept. 
************************************************

That logic is called “Pascal’s Wager”.  However, let me ask you a hypothetical, moral evaluation:

Supposing God appeared and said: All this talk about an afterlife and Heaven and Hell is nonsense, cooked up by men with a political agenda.  Neither I nor My Son ever made such a promise.  When you die, you die.  But the Law I gave Moses, and the interpretation My Son gave you are My will.”

Given that you had NO reward, no “Pie in The Sky When You Die” (Joe Hill, not me), do you STILL see those rules for living as viable and valid?  Could live by them knowing you got NOTHING when you died?

It’s one of the toughest challenges I face as an Agnostic: The idea that without any reward after I’m dead that a moral life is STILL the right way to live and that there are compelling reasons why that is so.

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 14, 2010 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis

Oh come on Nemesis don’t be such a sore loser.

The reason the judges gave Mystic the bout was for substance, style, discipline and imagination. You were lacking in all areas but principally in discipline. I acknowledge that you had a lot of valid points that I agree with but you come off as angry and vengeful. A sourpuss. You have the tendency to take the issue beyond what is being talked about and assign error where it doesn’t exist. Remember, we are talking about opinions and views and there are no absolutes. Unless we are debating about faith based beliefs where we do get into absolutes and into the realm of fanaticism, zealotry and intolerance. But you and Mystic where not arguing about absolutes and the reason I took interest in your exchange is because both had valid arguments. There was no right and wrong. I understood what both of you where saying but your opponent did not attempt to disqualify your views as much as you tried to disqualify his. You where trying to prove his wrong which it wasn’t, based on the premise he was proposing. Which I don’t think his premise was erroneous and you were adding hypotheticals beyond his premise. This is were you lost on points.

By the same token it doesn’t make any of your points wrong based on the hypotheticals you manifested. So both of you were right based on the individual hypotheticals. So don’t be jealous if the judges gave Mystic the edge. You tried rope a dope and it didn’t work. But hey it was a good confrontation.

As for the for the rest of your comment, you made me pull out my dictionary to look up vapid and puerile. I guess I’m not as sophisticated as you. But upon looking at the definitions it only proves my point that you are a sore loser. You seem to be resentful and spiteful and probably feel that the only way to debate is to offend and cut the other guy down when you are offended which wasn’t my intention. Well, that’s your problem and since I do have a life it doesn’t bother me in the least. As a matter of fact I just get a laugh out of it because I know where you’re coming from. So don’t try to turn this enjoyable experience into a bad experience for me. I don’t care Nemesis cause I can say I sort of come to know you intimately as far as your style or lack thereof. Hey, at one point you even told me to kill myself, of course I know you then backtracked. But you’re volatile, out of control, undisciplined. You have a tendency to exaggerate and as Mystic said, and I agree, you seem to suffer from looneism. That is why you are a loser here. I guess we can possibly agree on atheism, but then maybe not.

And stop with all the nickel and dime words. You’re coming off as a nerd and a geek. Not the tough battle-hardened Vietnam veteran and former soldier you claim you are.

Cheers

Report this

By nemesis2010, March 14, 2010 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

@ JDmysticDJ:

I thought you were a female. What you’re supposed to be doing hon, is providing evidence to back your claims.

Oh… sweetheart… a poltroon is a base coward. Your wallowing in your ignorance reminds me of an old expression: “As happy as a pig in feces.”

Evidence! Evidence! Evidence! Evidence to back your spurious claims!

You’re right on one point JD and I like to give credit when it’s due.

JDmysticDJ, March 13 at 9:15 pm #

Ardee
Thanks for suggesting that the article was sarcasm.I guess I’m dense. I didn’t see the sarcasm, and I almost defined myself as a pre-April fool.

You guessed correctly! We finally agree on something! Congrats… admitting you might be slow to apprehend—stupid?—could be your first step to recovery.

@ MarthaA.

Wrong on every count! Believing it with all of your heart and mind doesn’t make it true. If 99.9% of humans believed it; it still would not make it true! And it isn’t. It’s all made up over several millennia; the bible has been edited, redacted, and emended so many times it’s impossible to count. It wouldn’t be hard to prove that you don’t even believe that book of fables as much as you would have us believe that you do. 

I’m curious to know Martha, do you believe that genital mutilation of infant boys and young girls is child abuse? 

@ jay1953:

Your attempt at levity is puerile and vapid. You’re coming across as JD’s obsequious sycophant or as it is expressed in street vernacular; JD’s little biotch.

You said that you might need to get a life, but effusively kissing the derrière of a supercilious sciolist in order to obtain vacuous approbation isn’t much of a life. Toady much?

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 13, 2010 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment

By the way Martha I don’t blame god for anything. How can you blame a non-exiting entity for anything? That is so irrational. Like blaming flying turtles for all the worlds problems.

The blame lies in people, like you, that believe in imaginary gods and use that as a cover to commit and justify atrocities. God only exists in your mind and in the mind of others like you, the same way it existed in the imagination of Mohamed Atta. Perhaps, you, like most believers were indoctrinated and brainwashed in this belief as infants. That what happens with most believers.

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 13, 2010 at 9:44 pm Link to this comment

Part 1

Gee, Martha your argument is beyond irrational and contradictory. I sense confusion in your attempts at rationality.

Atheist are not known to be terrorists Martha. Religious zealots are. Terrorism is perpertrated mainly from your religious cohorts of the 3 most dangerous religions that humanity has known. Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Look at the statistics. Atheist have the lowest statistics as a group in the number of murderers, atheist have the lowest number as a group statistically that is incarcerated (I believe it is less than 2% of the total prison population), lowest incidence of suicides, just to name a few statistics. Have you ever wondered why? Could it be that atheists in general are rational people? See Martha, most of us unbelievers value and respect life so much since we realize that life is all there is. Most atheist can not conceive any justification for taking another human life because we value another life as much as our own. So there is nothing for you beyond death Martha. Only nothingness. So you have to value the now. Believers can and do justify killing all the time, I prefer to call it murder. You’re doing it with your defense of Stack.

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 13, 2010 at 9:43 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 for Martha

You on the other hand, as a believer, believe there is something for you beyond this life once your body dies. This belief system of yours as we’ve seen when applied by the many devalues and disrespects life when you and others like you are willing give their lives and take other lives in name of a figment that only exists in your imagination.

You talk about choice, but yet religious fanatic, of which I consider you one of, are constantly proselytising and condemning others that just can’t quite see thing from their theological point of view. To the extent of killing others and themselves with the support of believers like you. Maybe, you believe that since Stack wasted his precious life for a cause that you support that he is being rewarded in an imaginary heaven. Very much the same way the 19 hijackers are to be rewarded for 911 in their imaginary afterlife they expected. Why is their belief any more or any less rational than yours?

Martha, belief in god and in religion is a mental illness, it can’t be described in any other way. It is a self induced schizophrenic condition. And yes you self induce it by choice which doesn’t say much for your rational state of mind. Oh! but it is your choice and you can be proud of yourself if you can take pride in being irrational.

Of course the simpletons believe in divine retribution. The evil get punished. For example the irrationality that Hitler is burning in hell for all eternity. The sad part for you and your kind is that if your imagination doesn’t place the wicked in hell then that would mean that a guy like Hitler got away with it. Something that defies your imaginary sense of divine justice and you can’t deal with that. Martha, he got away with it, deal with it. You know there are a lot of things that are unjust, your God doesn’t care.

Martha, I believe I was an unbeliever or atheist since I could reason. I realize that now. As a youngster I never thought that through, nor its consequences until I had a near death experience. You see Martha when your loved ones die they really die, forever. They died and are really gone, you’ll never see them again. You’ll never be with them again. I was overwhelmed incredible sadness when I realized this. Perhaps believers like you want to avoid that sadness and pain. But sadness and pain is part of life and so is joy. Joy that the little piece of eternity that you get to live was meaningful in some way. You see you are living in eternity, but only a very minuscule piece of it. After going through the phase of sadness you have an, if I can use the word, epiphany of sorts. A sense of exhilarating freedom, like a huge burden has been lifted from you. A sense peaace with yourself and with others. You stop rationalizing as to why bad things happen to good people. The fact is that there is no rationale, they just happen for whatever natural laws of physics or genetics caused them. 

Finally, there is really no point in arguing about something that doesn’t even exist, god, it is only in your imagination. Really arguing about god or religion is like arguing about flying turtles.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 13, 2010 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

jay1953, March 13 at 9:08 pm,

Gee, you sound like a would be terrorist.

Thank God, there is freedom of religion in the United States.  Believing in God is my choice.  I’m sorry you don’t, but that is your choice.

It is sad that you blame God for man’s shortcomings.

Report this

By Bobadi, March 13, 2010 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

just taking off the notification of further comments, it appears I have to make a comment to do this?
Well as long as I am here, hey have fun folks, I really don’t care for all the ego flaming word flood, what was the point of all this? 

Yeah he was a terrorist, but who isn’t? It’s so common that the word itself is just used to blacklist actions which seem all too human.

Again, what is the difference between a “freedom fighter” and “a terrorist”?
It seems to depend on what side you are on.

The religious here will be infected with religion unless they lose that infectious meme, and free themselves from its narrow minded confines, which are meant to both unite and control a large group of people.
Zionists are a fine example of such, and anyone not infected with its meme (as both the Jewish and Christian Zionists here) should be able see the continuation of it as its original intent: to both raise up and lend moral support to a group of racist nomadic warriors to commit the worst of thieving atrocities.
The same junk in play today.
Just read your torah/bible.
Good luck!

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 13, 2010 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

Gosh Martha, what a waste of time reading your dribble.

Sounds like the same line of BS that I use to hear at church when I was kid. I stopped going at 13, even before that age, since about 7 or 8, I knew it was all crap. and stupid. Only an imbecile will believe in something as imaginary as a god.

Talking, or reading, about a god that only exists in the minds of people like you is incredibly boring. God did not create man, man created god. A figment of your superstitious imagination didn’t create anything. Get over it, get a life.

Christians are just as bad and ignorant as muslims and jews. Religion and belief in god is not only a pathological delusion it is a dangerous mental disorder that needs to be extinguished.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 13, 2010 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment

nemesis2010, March 11 at 2:23 pm,

Part 1 of 2

If you do not choose to believe there is a spirit of fear, that is your choice, never the less, it is so.

I am of the opinion that loving the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and your neighbor as yourself is a personal relationship—one on one—between you and God and no one else, not a religion.  Jesus did not start a religion.  God does not hold any religion responsible for any individual’s actions, only YOU and YOU alone are responsible for YOU before God. 

Jesus is the Lord God and was God on earth; no man can do the works that Jesus did, because man is not God.  It is recorded in the books of the Bible and historians have noted changes after the death of Jesus in his disciples, who were hiding and scared for their life prior to the resurrection of Jesus, but after Jesus came back from the dead and talked with them, they became BOLD and preached and taught the resurrected Jesus until each and every one of them gave up their life,  one at a time, for Jesus’ teachings when Jesus was on earth, which they recorded before their deaths that became the Holy Bible.  Two of Jesus’ 1/2 brothers wrote books of the Holy Bible as they were eye witnesses of Jesus life throughout his life, and Jesus’ disciples that walked with him on earth were eye witnesses as well.  Saul, a killer of Christians, was not an original eyewitness, but became an eyewitness when Jesus knocked him down and blinded him; and when he recovered his sight changed his name to Paul; then, Paul wrote most of the New Testament from jail before he was killed because of Christ.

The Holy Bible was written as the truth for the body,soul and spirit, and not for government and church misuse, because it was cheaper than killing Christains.  Misuse of God’s Word can’t be kept from happening, but if one accepts the Holy Bible as the Word of God and makes Jesus the Lord of one’s life to the best of one’s ability, then one has help on earth and a bright future after death; where as, if one doesn’t, then one’s future may not be so everlastingly bright in death.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment

nemesis2010, March 11 at 2:23 pm,

Part 2 of 2

If the Holy Bible is just a glorious hoax, and we die like flies, then one has lost nothing, because the teachings are above reproach; but if it is truth, as I am convinced it is, then in death one receives everlasting life and has forever gained everything there is to gain in the everlasting world to come where water is alive.  Accepting Jesus’ death and resurrection as my living Savior who died for me appears to be a win/win situation that I accept. 

Divide and conquer definitely is a tactic that has been effectively used by nobleism’s conservatism against the liberal populace to divide the political Left and leave the greater majority of the liberal populace without representation. Jesus the Christ was a liberal.  The populace must come together and realize that conservatism, whether nobleism’s conservatism or the church’s conservatism, is the enemy of the populace and the populace must start actually following Jesus and quit following conservatism’s evil ways that are destroying the populace and the country as a whole.

Moses turned the other cheek to the Pharaoh in Egypt and finally the Pharaoh did let God’s people go from the oppression and tyranny at the time in Egypt.  Right now the populace of the United States needs a Moses to speak for the populace, as the populace no longer have representation in Congress in the making and enforcing of laws and the conservative church is being a part of the oppression.

I agree that religion is a tool of oppression used by governments.  In the United States the religion used by the government is Right-Wing Conservatism.  Conservative religion is the form of the various religions that is the oppressive tool used by oppressive governments.  Right now in the United States the government, corporations and religion has become one, which is FASCISM, with corporate toadies telling the government what to do.

Did I say something about revolution?  I can’t seem to find where I said anything about revolution, but the Right-Wing’s Conservatism in government, Rupert Murdoch’s conservatism in the media, and conservatism’s religion has had an all out revolution against the populace of the United States and the world for over 40 years, which is and has been a conservatism revolution of dedicated contumelious hyperbole, lies [sophism], and propaganda against liberals, progressives, socialists, socialism and community, of which Rupert Murdoch is the media leader and many church leaders go along and others are ignorant of what socialism really is, because without socialism the church would starve to death, as well as the government.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 13, 2010 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis2010 (a.k.a. sore looser)

Your pseudo intellectual prancing reminds one of the, end of 15th round, declarations of victory by the defeated, and thoroughly “bloodied” loser, before the decision has been announced, or the cries of protest, so often heard at post fight interviews.

You can whine, and complain, but you had your chance and you lost. The most credible representatives from the truthdig commission have declared me the victor, but I’ll suggest the scoring was overly generous in your favor, and that scoring was influenced by the judges’ sympathy for you.

Oh, you will have your supporters, so I’m publishing the following open letter to you, in order to put this issue to a final rest.  My confidence in the outcome was so sure, and out of sympathy for you, I withheld the following punches from the 15th round. However, your bloody prancing and denial of the obvious results, has caused me to provide this coup de grace (French, indicating opponents having his arse in his hand.)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 13, 2010 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

nemesis2010 (a.k.a. inducer of Narcolepsy)

We have been the victims of technological repeal of the 1st Amendment. I am of two minds about the reinstatement. I value the 1st amendment, but this reinstatement necessitates my returning to your lethargy inducing blathering.

Let’s see, where was I? Oh yeah! I was defending against your scolding and accusations, regarding my answers to your numerous, numerated (but redundant) blathering (I’d use the word twaddle, but blathering is more contemporary.) I was just finishing with replying to scolding number two.

You conclude scolding number two by attempting to make your blathering credible by citing Ambrose Gwinett Briece. This attempt is lost on me because I’m not familiar with this individual. I am familiar with an individual whose name was Ambrose Bierce, but the name Ambrose Gwinett Briece is not familiar to me. Are we thinking of the same person? If so I’ll point out that Ambrose Bierce or Briece, whatever, was far from credible, because he was just another loony. He was William Randolph Hearst’s glory boy. You are familiar with Randy Hearst aren’t you? He’s notable for his motto “All the news that causes fits, when printed,” for his love of big houses,and because was a student of the P.T. Barnham school of Journalism. There was a good example of pseudo artistic melodrama, produced by, and starring Orsen Wells, (No relation to H.G.) The famous conclusion to that worthless piece of over-hyped melodrama referenced a mysterious “Rosebud,” which has been been subject to many interpretations. Some believe that “Rosebud” was a term of endearment used by Randy, to address Ambrose Bierce or Briece.

Bierce/Briece achieved notoriety because he was very good at fantasy, and because he got lost in Mexico. I understand that the Mexicans referred to him as Gringo Viejo Del loco. He is hardly credible

Your reference to Poltroons is not relevant because the Poltroons were old British gentlemen, who directed the charge of the Light Brigade, and such, and the non-violent would never condone such lunacy. Our nation does have examples of poltroonery from our history, for example General George S. Patton, who quite ostentatiously stated his love for blood and gore, but always assigned the enjoyment of blood and gore to others. The most accepted use of poltroonery relates to military men, so using it to describe the non-violent is blathering.

Also, there may be a few”lazy eyes” among the non-violent but “wild eyes” are not present, so this is a mere fabrication on your part.

Finally, never underestimate the power of the cynical; the success of their proactive opposition to action is evident throughout the course of history.

We’re moving along now. In response to scolding #3 I’ll point out that I did explain my plan, and I presented the expected results of A and B. You may not agree with my plan, but stating that I have no plan shows that the filters of your big ape brain are clogged.

Response to scolding #4: You say “See paragraph 1, Question 2.” I really hate all this referencing, which is made more difficult, due to your faulty collating.

I dispute your contention that the U.S. Congress is a subsidiary; it’s most definitely more comparable to a market place. “Big Corp” currently is attempting to corner the market, but I’m advocating for consumer action through the ballot box to block this attempt at arbetragery. Clearly Big Corp’s subsidiaries are majority stock holders in the U.S. Congress, and that is why I advocate consumers purchasing stock, in order to nullify this stock imbalance. (Clearly my analogies are a little convoluted, but so are yours.)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 13, 2010 at 1:14 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis2010 (a.k.a. inducer of Narcolepsy)

Regarding your Chomsky quotation,

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” -Noam Chomsky

I may be the least likely person in the world to dispute Chomsky, but that is not necessary. Apparently your clogged filters blocked out my assertion that non-violent action would bring issues to the forefront of political debate thereby broadening the spectrum of acceptable opinion. Big Corp’s subsidiary would be forced to expand the debate in order to remain competitive. Ignoring consumer demand would cause bankruptcy, which many would consider beneficial to our democracy. (Again these analogies are necessary because of your own analogies.)

You sell the American people short, when you suggest they would give precedence to the “miss American Idol” pageant. The American people have a long history of watching “60 Minutes” for example. Perhaps some scheduling would be necessary, but I think you’re being too cynical. Millions would give precedence to the “miss American Idol pageant,” while other millions would be watching dramas, situation comedies, reality shows, infomercials, and whatnot, but millions would also be watching the demonstrations. You yourself mentioned that you would have some interest in watching them.

Response to scolding #5: This blathering brings to mind the old song, “If I only had a big ape brain,” sung by the Strawman.

My answer:

“As commented to earlier, attempts to make examples of people will be, and currently are, practiced. Like minded people would not be influenced by these attempts, and these attempts would only create more like minded people, which would facilitate political contingencies at the ballot box and by politicians. I suspect that your imagined examples are not realistic, and based on extreme cynicism. I’ll suggest that non-violent action is now necessary, in order to avoid the potentialities of your worst imaginings in the future. If your worst imaginings came to fruition, then all would be lost, and there would be no contingencies for the non-violent.”

I maintain that my above response is too big to be an oversimplification, and I think it responds to your question, so… it’s not a misrepresentation, right?

Your objection seems to be that the ballot box failed previously so it no longer has any relevance. To me, it only indicates that the electorate needs to be better informed, and I’ll restate my opinion that non-violent action would serve to make the electorate better informed. Your criticism of our current democracy is cogent, but if you’re suggesting that democracy can not be improved by political action, you are being far too cynical, and that assertion would bode ill for the future. To be frank, I consider your apparent view to be defeatist, and as long as we’re throwing the word poltroon around, I’ll suggest that you’re guilty of poltroonerie.{sic} (Not the current street vernacular sic, but the old fashioned one.)

Response to scolding #6: Clear? Clear to whom? Unclog your filters and go back and read my answer. I’m teetering between depression and boredom thanks to you. Thankfully, I’ve recognized that boredom is the most appropriate response, seeing as how I’m only presenting my thoughts to a void. That does strike me as being the act of someone who is mentally disturbed though. I’ll need serious therapy soon.

Response to scolding #7: While we’re on the subject of mental disorder, what is it that Einstein said about asking the same questions over, and over, and over… and over…and over again, while hoping for different answers?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 13, 2010 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis2010 (a.k.a. inducer of Narcolepsy) (cont.)

Response to scolding #8: I can’t get that old song out of my head. Don’t you hate that when that happens? “I would duh duh, duh dudda, dudda dudda…if I only had a big ape brain.”

There were many victims of the Civil Rights movement, but most people would describe that movement as being an example of non-violent action, but you’re using semantics to twist the issue. Technically you’re correct. I would offer new terminology, if I weren’t planning to end this futility soon. How about non-violent action met with tragic violence? Clearly the victims of non-violent political action were courageous, and true to their beliefs, as you claim Stack was. The difference is they were true martyrs and not perpetrators of violence. There was violence after Martin Luther King died, but it was very small in comparison to the violence that would have occurred if those who wanted Civil Rights had resorted to violent action. You can speculate all you want about what would occur because of non-violent political action, but that’s all it is speculation based on #1, cynicism, and #2, a desire to win this argument. This debate is no longer extremely boring, it’s now moved to being simply uninteresting.

Unwarranted fear is paranoia, and not useful. Fear is rational if one believes that change is coming and that it will be violent. Violent change will be a bear, but apparently you have no fear, because you think you can run faster than I can. Or maybe you feel that you don’t need to bother with the problem because you will be non-existent when the bear rears his ugly head. If that’s the case, I believe you’re guilty of self serving poltroonery.

Response to scolding #9:

You’re definition of what I advocate is yours. You continue to state it for purposes of argument. Either you claim clairvoyance, or you’re purposefully distorting the issue. Your contention that 1st Amendment rights would be abandoned in response to non-violent action is speculation based on cynicism. Violent acts by phantom groups of bogeymen (The bogeyman, also spelled boogyman, bogyman, boogieman, and boogey monster is a legendary ghost-like monster,) would be met by the might of U.S. police agencies, and if necessary the National Guard. If this apocalyptic scenario you put forth would occur, why do you care? You claim you have no fear, and the apocalyptic scenario has already been predicted, by you.

Have you noticed that lives are currently at risk? Do you advocate doing nothing, because you fear the bogeyman?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 13, 2010 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

Nemesis2010 (a.k.a. inducer of Narcolepsy) (cont.)

Response to Scolding #10: Kent State, Jackson State, and the activities of COINTELPRO, were indeed tragic, and dangerous, but they paled in significance to the 3,000,000 in Indo-China, and the 55,000 thousand names on the monument. If your experiences are real, and I believe they are, you did the right thing according to your limited consciousness, but the consequences were real, and not imagined.

Your link to you tube is instructive, but it’s an old story, it brings to mind the Bonus Army, Selma, Berkeley, my own experiences, previously mentioned incidents, and others too numerous to mention, but it fails to point out the results of such actions. It’s hard to tell if you’re outraged by this March 4 incident, or just using it as an example, but I am outraged, and I’ll suggest that many others who are exposed to this outrage, will also be outraged, as they were by previous outrages, and that those previous outrages brought about reform. A busted skull is outrageous, but there was no loss of life, and I suspect that the pain suffered, and the time in jail, will be regarded as prideful memories by those who participated. This particular incident may be regarded as actions motivated by self interest, by some, but I’m sure that these actions will be seen as acts to combat injustice, by those who participated.

I’m not callous about their suffering, and I’m well aware that there are additional inconveniences and anxiety yet to be suffered, but I’m sure that they will look back with pride, when they remember this incident, and that most of the participants will not consider this action to be an act of futility, as I suspect that you do. I suspect that others will agree with me, Hedges for one, and other opponents of tyranny as well.

Now I will bid adieu, (That’s French, it means goodbye.) Adios, or via con Dios seems more appropriate, because goodbye would be expressed in the language of Ambrose Bierce’s (Briece, whatever) Mexican critics. 

At long last I will be free from this tedium. I’m filled with glee, which causes me to wonder if your impact on me has caused additional mental disorders. Am I now suffering from Manic Depression? Serious therapy is in order.

Incidentally, “Dats d’ fact, Jack!” is the correct street vernacular, note that “d’” would be a slang substitute for the word “the.”

Also, the quotation from Vonnegut that is most pertinent to our discussion would be “And so it goes…” Some believe this quotation is an expression of cynicism, others believe it is meant to be motivational.

Report this

By nemesis2010, March 11, 2010 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

@MarthaA:

Fear is not a spirit. There aren’t any spirits! Religion is man-made and is a tool of oppression.

You have a myopic understanding of the definition of the word fear. Look it up and study it.

At no time have I advocated fear of the government in the sense that you are using the word. All I have done here—repeatedly—is warn one and all of the severe consequences one can expect to face when confronting power. Even your book of myth warns you to consider well the consequences of an action before committing to it.

A perfect allegory that teaches what one can expect when dealing with power is the Jesus myth. He was killed by the State. Forget the resurrection; it never happened. The fact is that the Jesus of the bible probably never existed. We know for a fact that the Jesus of the Bible didn’t exist because no man can walk on water, turn water into wine, cure a blind man with spittle and dirt, etc. No human being can do those things. All of that is as true as Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.

If you’re going to use your bible as your weapon of choice to fight the injustices of government you’re in a real pickle because of Romans 13. You also have a problem with:

Matt 5:38-42 “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.”

All this talk of revolution and “taking back our government” is part of the bread and circus provided by the ruling elite to keep the people divided and entertained. If you question beyond the platitudes, jingoisms and slogans, you soon realize that the “enemy” is opaque and yet ubiquitous. The goals are never clearly defined and the slogans, jingoisms and platitudes are specious. Think of what “take our country back” means to you then go ask a couple of your friends what that jingoism means to them. Then compare notes on what you need to do when and if you do get it back. Try that with people of a different social group than yours and see if you find the answers even closely related.

Before you go into battle you need to know who the hell you’re fighting and what goals you need to accomplish to qualify the victory. Victory is not standing before a camera with a cup on to make it look like you’re hung like King Kong and declaring it. Victory is defeating the enemy.

Divide and conquer is not just a slogan; it’s a tactic.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, March 11, 2010 at 10:21 am Link to this comment

Well Donald Nygaard a smarmy but sincere apology. Didn’t quite jump the snark, which is good. I was not in any way advocating violence. Just that in those cases I gave the county, Germany had already fallen off the deep end. Too bad the White Rose couldn’t get people to be interested in peace and not hate before 1933. But they were few and the bulk of the Germans wanted what the Nazis had to offer. Militant nationalism & global domination, and that they were the chosen ones by god to rule the world.  We are in a similar situation. [Not an exact one by any means but many of the same elements found in various fascists regimes of the 1930’s from Spain to Germany to Thailand. Chile & Argentina in the 1970’s-1980’s. Not exact it will be America for the domination of the world. A Christian based crusade and inquisition.]

I say we are running out of time. Violence will help their case and we are in a bad position right now. We are angling for another drop into Greater Depression economically soon. That too will benefit them because they planned it and planned for it. It must not happen. Just as everything must be done to not make war with Iran which will put us in the same position. We must act legally and Constitutionally which is very hard considering all the crypto-fascists in both parties working against us. We still have time to act but the countdown is near its end. Then the fall of the Republic & the build up from its ruins of a new American Empire will happen. (The external empire will be immune.) We are living in a kluge of a hybrid of Republic~Empire (inverted totalitarian) which cannot last. One or the other or both must fall. Maybe now I have clarified my position on this.

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 11, 2010 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

Ladies and gentlemen. We have a decision from the judges.

After 15 grueling and punishing rounds between these two fine gladiators, the judges have come to a split decision. Scoring is on a 10 point must system.

Judge Sccoby Doo scores the the bout 143-142
Judge Gorilla Mogilla scores the bout 145-140
Judge Elmer Fudd scores the bout 140-145

For the winner by split decision, and new heavyweight champion of humor and sarcasm to make a point, and get giggle simultaneously, JDMysticDJ!

Report this

By nemesis2010, March 11, 2010 at 10:16 am Link to this comment

@ JDmysticDJ:

Truly amazing!

You have had your arse handed to you. Thus you are not only frantically inventing one straw man after another in order to knock them down but also trying to cover your arse with legerdemain and a lame attempt at sarcastic comedy. A classic misdirection play trying to conceal the fact that your mouth has overloaded your butt and you are unable to provide the evidence required to back up your claim(s). An argument from personal incredulity is NOT evidence.

You are supposed to be presenting us evidence of prior non-violent political achievements—on a comparable scale of those that are needed to return the U.S. to a more egalitarian system—as proof that your pipe dream of non-violent resolution of major issues in AmeriCorp is a reasonable and attainable goal. You have failed miserably.

Your one attempt wasn’t even a political action; it was an individual, a figurehead, of what was arguably one of the bloodiest wars for independence in modern history. After several days of contemplation Gandhi was all that you could come up with. (One would think that his many beatings, imprisonments, and ultimate assassination would have been a big clue for you.) And we haven’t even touched on the aftermath of that war which provides more evidence for my argument. Gandhi?

Your “evidence” solidifies my argument that no significant political change—change that will truly return the U.S. to a more egalitarian form of self-government—is attainable without violence. History—not nemesis2010—proves your position daft! History teaches us that one or more factions will always resort to violence either to attain the reins of power or to retain them.

”The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.” –H.L. Menchen

Report this

By Donald Nygaard, March 10, 2010 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

Dear Night-Gaunt,

Thanks for the comment regarding my missing your point, which seems to be terrible power concentrated in tyrannical hands will trounce the forces of those who wage the battle for truth and justice with mere ideas and nonviolence. While you are correct that history is replete with examples where might trumps right, you are still guilty of dragging the discussion back to a pessimistic viewpoint that violent uprising is the only choice we have left to preserve our liberty.

Thus being duly chastised, I am compelled to look back through this discussion to better understand your point of view as expressed in 25 separate instances. This may be a surprise, but I find you make some good points. Although, you do belabor them to the point of redundancy.

Before continuing, let me stipulate to those still awake: Whatever your political or semantic viewpoint, Stack’s a shit, terrorist, freedom fighter, etc. His actions can only be counter-productive. Do I need to enumerate the ways?

Okay! M. Night-Gaunt: I agree that tyrants will use any excuse to clampdown on dissident factions, and that provocations such as Stack’s can only play to those tendencies. I disagree with your overly-apocalyptic sense of inevitability.

We live in perilous times. We must understand the lessons and means of manipulating history of which you remind us. By all means, we must stand down from our hair-trigger security mentality. To me, your posts are long on the negative. Wouldn’t it be better to advocate rational discourse than fan flames of extremism? I sincerely hope calmer, more thoughtful arguments prevail.

Regards,

Don

Report this

By Bobadi, March 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment

Inherit the wind:
You’ve twisted my words—and you know it. It’s a deliberate mis-stating.
I NEVER justified French terrorism, or any other kind. I DID say that guerrilla attacks on military targets, including those by the puny French resistance against German military were NOT “terrorist”—and I stand by that.

Bobadi:
Good, then you can understand the similarities; that “puny” is the Hamas resistance against the massively US bolstered Israeli military, and that Israeli military both slaughters at will Palestinians captives within the Israeli made refugee ghetto camps, and slaughters civilians on a far-FAR grander scale then the return of Palestinian resistance back to them. (Much like German reprisals to French resistance.)
As well, Israel normally begins these episodes of slaughter, as it did in Gaza, and that the line between Israel civilians and its military is blurred as they are one and the same conscripted component? (I may be wrong, but I don’t believe the primarily humanitarian organization Hamas, conscripts soldiers as Israel does? Can someone clarify this?)

Inherit the wind:
As much as I would like to see that guys that drive exploding trucks into our soldiers dead 3x over, I STILL see them as guerrillas, even criminals, NOT terrorists (committing an act of war while not in uniform generally exempts you from Geneva Convention protections)  But when they send a suicide bomber to prevent people from voting, oh, those ARE terrorists.
You create a hypothetical situation and then demand a moral statement about it, a hypothetical situation that did not happen—there weren’t a flood of German carpet-baggers into Paris.

Bobadi:
And you seem to be confusing Iraq or Afghanistan with your theft of land and resources from the Palestinians. Although it is in your favor to blur this, we must focus on the start and end to all Muslim outrage and violence, which is Zionist’s repressive colonization, (such as 1600 new Zionist homes being built on Palestinian territory now in the news) and US bolstering of regimes with its military in Muslim lands.

Report this

By Bobadi, March 10, 2010 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment

Inherit the wind:
What you want to do is say that Israel is WORSE than Nazi Germany, WORSE then the Rwanda massacres, WORSE than the civil war in Eastern Congo (Which has left 5 MILLION DEAD, equal to the ENTIRE population of Israel), WORSE than the Darfur ethnic cleansing, WORSE than the Bosnia ethnic cleansing.
It has done none of those things and ANYTHING that Israel can be charged with does not compare to those atrocities, despite the anti-semitic attempts to make it so.

Bobadi:
Hyperbole, this is the Zionist’s number one weapon.  No one has made any such claims, even though you consistently attempt to build up this false strawman to take attention off of your atrocities.
It is of note that there have been far greater genocides in history then the Nazi one, but never have they resulted in their being used as an excuse for colonization against innocent people who had nothing to do with the genocide.

Inherit the wind:
I’ve read accusations here of Israel displacing “millions” of Arabs when it was founded, when even the ARAB figures are far lower.


Bobadi: Globally speaking 1 out of 3 world refugees are Palestinian, due to racist Zionism.
http://www.forcedmigration.org/guides/llreport2/llreport2-4.htm

Inherit the wind:
Nobody here wants to admit it but they don’t like Jews, and worse, they HATE defiant, proud Jews, just like the KKK bigots hated “uppity Niggers” and would lynch them when they “forgot their place”.
Jews are STILL “supposed” to be doctors and lawyers and bankers and musicians and comedians, but NEVER warriors or fighters.  Stereotyping still exists.

Bobadi:
Are we not speaking about your repression of “uppity Palestinians?”

Let’s have some fun here, and transpose your word “Jews” and “Israel” for the words “Germans” and “Germany” and see if it sounds familiar to the bolstering of fascist racism about 3/4’s century ago:

“Germans are STILL “supposed” to be doctors and lawyers and bankers and musicians and comedians, but NEVER warriors or fighters.”     

“I’ve read accusations here of Germany displacing millions of Jews when it was founded,-.”

“Nobody here wants to admit it but they don’t like Germans, and worse, they HATE defiant, proud Germans-”

Well, it certainly sounds to me that hateful racists can sprout from any race at all, and that they can use the same rhetoric to bolster their cause.
Again I am entertained by the constant strawman Zionists attempt to prop up over and over again as in the hyperbole above. They really don’t have many tricks in their tired old bag, sadly.

It’s amusing, but it also does get too redundant, and that may well be the “win” they are looking for.
To misdirect they only have to keep obfuscating their own racist inspired theft, by twisting it around to claim “others” are the racists. They constantly use the words and phrases like the above: “HATE” “ KKK” “5 million dead” “Antisemitic” “bigots” etc to eventually change the focus from their brutal apartheid theft of land and resources (and the understandable return of violence to them for this,) to that of semantics, such as to have us all chase out the meaning of the word “Semite” or “terrorist.”

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, March 10, 2010 at 10:40 am Link to this comment

I must thank you Donald Nygaard for totally missing the subject of what I wrote to fixate on the trappings of it. It wasn’t about WW II or Hitler it was about the fact that if Gandhi had to deal with the mind set of the Germans of that time and not the British he would have failed. You didn’t refute it, you simply ignored it. A fine way of not addressing the subject which is legitimate. The White Rose Society was real and wasn’t violent but was against the Nazi regime. They were hunted down and killed. What say you to that? Can you really address the subject or just made uncomfortable by my example?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 9, 2010 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis2010 ( a.k.a. agent of myasthenia gravis)

I’m back. I had a nice nap, and I had a nice respite watching infomercials. I was feeling a little better, but the darkness enveloped me again, when I realized I had to get back to your scolding.

Talk about depressing! It’s really sad when you’re idols turn out to have feet of clay. Apparently Gandhi had a grudge against the Nazis. What a scumbag! He was an ambulance driver? Damn! He was nothing but another Hemmingway. I wonder why he went from being such a bloody bastard to being a practitioner of non-violence. I’m guessing he was just another opportunist.

I’m going to try a miraculous feat of mental gymnastics. I haven’t been able to incorporate this into my routine yet, but lord knows I’ve tried. Let’s see if I can execute it properly this time. Watch this carefully. YES…THERE…WILL…BE…SOME…LIMITED…VIOLENCE…PERPETRATED…BY…THE…VIOLENT…AGAINST…THE…NON… VIOLENT…DURING…PROTEST…BY…THE…NON…VIOLENT. Now here is the hardest part, THERE…WILL…BE…LESS…VIOLENCE…THAN…THAT…OF…VIOLENT…ACTION… Now here is the landing, THERE…WOULD…BE…VERY…LITTLE…LIFE…THREATENING…VIOLENCE. I think I nailed it!

Wow! I’m amazed by your mental gymnastics. Especially your quantum leaps, they’re unbelievable.

You know I have a problem with linguistics, but you continue to criticize me. I even said that revolution was actually evolution, when it related to reforming democracy. Do you remember that? Clearly that was a semantics screw up, wasn’t it? I even said something about revolution of thought, damn! There’s another embarrassment. Revolution means violence, and that’s all there is to it. It’s in the dictionary. (There are other definitions, but they just confuse the issue, so let’s not consider them.)

You don’t play fair. The best defense is a good offense, but you never let me have the ball. I’m either defending against your questions or defending against your accusations. I find you extremely offensive.

Give me the ball, I’m going on the offensive.

Your dumb, the poltroons were always talking about the trans val, not India. They can not be described as non-violent; they are best described as being non-violent violents. There’s a difference. Look whose making semantics errors now.

The reality is that you are a real cynical cynic. Your reality is cynical. I’ll show you cynical, when somebody calls you a cynic, you get real cynical about it, and that’s reality. Score!!!

You know how people behave? You’re a lousy Psychologist/Psychiatrist and that’s a matter of record. You never got past the four character flaws, and that was on the first day of class. The first day is always devoted to the psychological school of quackery. You think that because you read some crap by that loony Bertrand Russell, that that makes you a behavioral psychologist, don’t make me laugh.

What is this?

“I found one day in school a boy of medium size ill-treating a smaller boy. I expostulated, but he replied: ‘The bigs hit me, so I hit the babies; that’s fair.’ In these words he epitomized the history of the human race.” –Bertrand Russell

You don’t know what this signifies. You don’t have a clue. When analyzing this little bit of intellectual child molestation, one can see two possible intentions, but you can only see one. Why is that? The answer is clear; one is all your cynical mind can fathom.

And that’s a fact Jack!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 9, 2010 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment

nemesis2010, March 9 at 2:46 pm,

Bush was a far cry from being Holy.  He is an elite mollycoddled drunk,  a coward who did not serve his time in the military, who had previously ran the businesses he had been set up to handle into the ground, and was the worse choice for president ever made for this country.  Bush was a product of the leaders of conservatism’s agenda to run this country into the ground.

Saying the Holy Bible is superstition is saying there is no God, which is also saying science is illogical.  People are a product of a scientific energy source, your brain is a complete energy reproducing source and the body is an energy field made in the image of God, even if made in a petri dish.
 
There are different forms of fear; there is the fear of God, which is awe.  There are feelings of agitation and anxiety, and apprehension, which is concern,  but the feelings of dread, trepidation and hopelessness comes from the spirit of fear that encourages you to give up.  The spirit of fear is the absence of faith and peace.

For the Bush administration to not fear having to suffer consequences is because after 40 years there are so many of Conservatism’s Right-Wing in their Conservatism Movement and Conservatives have control of all forms of the media to the extent that they have no fear.  Fear does play a part in maintaining a balance of power, but when the balance of power has shifted so far to the Right, there is no longer any balance, hence no fear by the Right-Wing Conservatives of the populace.

Based on the Holy Bible, 2 Timothy 1:7 “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” Spirits are beings of parallel dimensions under different rulers in the universe.  You do not have to believe it for it to be so, it is so, whether you believe it or not.

There can not be democracy as long as the populace fear the government.  Governments are suppose to fear the populace, not the populace fear the government. 

It is sad to hear conservatism’s Christian organizations are against the populace in Amarillo, TX.  The spirit of conservatism has overtaken the minds of most socialist church organizations and they totally forget the reason that Jesus gave his life was to save the populace.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 9, 2010 at 4:21 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis2010 (a.k.a. The thing that wouldn’t die)

You’ve pushed me into the abyss. I’ve gone from being extremely bored to falling into a deep dark depression. It seems that there is no escape from you. I went to the local pharmacy to purchase some stimulants, but the pharmacist would not honor my prescription, apparently they had a problem with my credentials.

I’ve already admitted my linguistic endeavor was a failure, do you have to rub it in; you’re merciless. Speaking of language, your use of the word “twaddle” shows your intelligence. “Twaddle” is very Dickensian. I must confess that I no longer hang on the streets, so the latest street terminology is lost on me. Oddly, my mother used the word “Bullshite” 50 years ago; little did I know she was so far ahead of her time.

Given my current state, would you please help me by sending your documents in sequence. I can barely hold my head up, let alone collate all these documents.

You must be mistaken about seeing Gandhi on the Letterman show. Gandhi never had much of a career, because the British judged him to be a bad actor many years ago. I’m not questioning your veracity but maybe it was Michael Kinsley or perhaps Ben Kingsley you saw on Letterman. It’s hard to be sure, based on the spelling of the name.

By JDmysticDJ, March 1 at 10:35 pm #

“I believe we need a revolution, but the revolution I advocate would be a non-violent one, that would not destroy our necessary institutions, “but reform them.” Violent movements give tyrants the rationale, and justification they need for violent suppression, but non-violent movements make that violent suppression much harder to prosecute. It’ been said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun, but I’ll suggest quite the contrary, our resorting to the barrel of a gun would eliminate any hope of attaining political power, justice, freedom, or peace.” 

Damn! You made me go all the way back to our first exchanges to find this. You really need to pay attention so I don’t have to keep answering these stupid accusations, over, and over, and over… and over…and over… Lord help me!... I can barely concentrate. Oh well, apparently I was responding to something you said, probably something like blood and gore or fetid corpses or bloody patriots or something, I don’t know, we’ve been at this for so long, (Big yawn.)

Maybe I should elaborate in order to push it through those filters into your big ape brain. Incidentally, are those filters metaphorical, allegorical, or are they real…?... Never mind… I don’t care (heavy sigh.)

I like our constitution. The first amendment is number one on my list. I’m not alone in my appreciation of the constitution; even our soldiers take an oath to uphold our constitution. (What happened to you? Did Roberts administer the oath to you?) I also like our Democracy thing; it’s been very useful. I wouldn’t want to do anything to wreck it.

I’m not like a lot of people who only bitch about our democracy, and seem to want to give it an early grave, instead of making it better.

When it collapses, and they run out of food stuffs, I’m guessing they’ll be very proud of their prescience. They’ll go around bragging to people “I knew this was going to happen.” I’ll guess that some big S.O.B. is going to say in a very menacing way, “Why didn’t you do something to stop it, DUMB ASS!”

(Huge yawn)… I’m going to take a nap.

Report this

By Donald Nygaard, March 9, 2010 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment

Really? Folks:

Could we stop long enough to read and understand what a person says without volleying another non sequitur into the mix? Germans winning WWII? For Pete’s sake (whoever Pete is), the non-violent revolution Mr. Mystic seems to suggest has, at least for the present, a good likelihood of arising within the context of a Constitutional Democracy. He clearly stipulates this throughout his reasoned response to Mr. Nemesis’s questions.

Isn’t the question prompted by this article really a red-herring? As I posted so many days ago, we’re dealing with asymmetrical warfare which happens to be about the only means available to the weak, not only in terms of power, but perhaps intelligence. self-image, and/or mental stability.

Thank goodness (whatever that means), we Americans live in a universe that presents optimistic options articulated by Mr. Mystic. Humanity has tried many of the means posed by others, more pessimistic than me, with disastrous results. Most often, these horrible upheavals arose despite clear warning of their approach.

Americans have turned the course of our destiny, sometimes with violence, but most often when cooler heads prevailed in the public commons of ideas. We need this sort of solution today. Let’s use the tools given us by the founders.

At this point, I will take exception with Barry Goldwater who got it wrong when he said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” In actuality, it’s merely extremism.

Goldwater gets partial credit for his “Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” At least it’s a step toward being reasonable.

Who was it that asked: “Brothers and sisters, the time has come for you to choose whether you’re gonna be part of the problem, or part of the solution?”

Well?

Bye!

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, March 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

Suffice it to say that if the Germans took over India after winning World War II Gandhi wouldn’t have succeeded, indeed would have failed as the White Rose Society did. (Hitler and company were of a different mien than the British who had control of India since 1792.) Wouldn’t you say Nemisis2010?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 9, 2010 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment

Jay1953

We need you to referee. He’s got analgesic on his gloves, and he’s going for my ear.

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 9, 2010 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

Could this be the comeback of Nemesis?:)

He’s up on his feet at the count of 8.

The fans thought it was a TKO, but Nemesis is allowed to continue after it was determined that he was thumbed in the eye. 

Could this be a comeback similar to Rocky Balboa vs Apollo Creed 2. Can history repeat itself?

The fans are going wild. No one is getting out of their seat for popcorn or to pee.

Can the brute force of Nemesis finish off the ever nimble, agile JDMysticDJ?

This is not over folks.

Stay glued to your monitors the action is just getting starting.

Report this

By nemesis2010, March 9, 2010 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

Question 9:

Revolution is indeed the issue here, you’re back-peddling! You have said non-violent revolution repeatedly for weeks now. The definition of revolution is not only the overthrow of one government and replacement by another but also a sudden and momentous change in a situation. A sudden and momentous change in a political situation, especially in a melting pot of 300 million, will have consequences and not all of them pleasant. 

That’s what I thought when I wrote the question. Your plan is to have the very government that you are protesting against to care for your wounded. Some revolution! You’re like a teabagger wanting the government to keep its hands off your Medicare! DUH!

The U.S. Constitution cannot do anything for you or anyone else. The U.S. Constitution is nothing more than a piece of parchment with words on it that “prescribe the nature, functions, and limits of” the U.S. government. That parchment is powerless! It is respect for those ideas for self-government, by ALL men, that ensures proper operation of the U.S. government. The reason there are so many upset citizens is because that document can be, and is, open to differing interpretations and always being usurped.

Lives will be at risk because of your fallacious assumptions!

Question 10:

The scenarios of which I spoke did occur. There’s a monument in Washington, D.C. commemorating the dead from that conflict. And the demonstrations trying to effect change in AmeriCorp’s Indo-China policy was anything but non-violent. Have you forgotten Kent State?

Here’s how the AmeriCorp ruling elites’ Sturmtruppen deal with a handful of non-violent protesters determined to let society know their disgruntlement with higher tuition prices and budget cuts. These individuals aren’t terrorists, insurgents, armed, or destroying property.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&feature=player_embedded&v=NsjadfLYnD4


When I read the dribble you try to pass off as your proud “creative linguistic endeavors” I’m reminded of a couple of lines penned by Vonnegut:

“The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.”
–The Sirens of Titan

“If your brains were dynamite, there wouldn’t be enough to blow your hat off.”
-Timequake

I’m sure our smaller brained relatives, the baboons, are also quite proud of their rather large and calloused derrières, not realizing that their larger brained cousins find them quite laughable and—dare I say it?—the butt of many jokes.

Report this

By nemesis2010, March 9, 2010 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

Question 4:

See paragraph 1, Question 2.

The reins of power and change are already determined by the ballot box. The count is in and you lost. The U.S. Congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Corp. Big Corp also owns the subsidiary Big Media that controls all of the debate. Should I mention that Big Corp also owns almost all of the ballot boxes? In AmeriCorp there is only the illusion of choice. The choice that you have is determined by Big Corp and its profit margins. Your non-violent revolution is a pipe dream and not based in reality.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” -Noam Chomsky

In a nation of 300 million people, good luck, trying to get a viable majority to agree on an issue important enough to risk getting their heads bashed in and, more importantly, perhaps miss American Idol.

Question 5:

Strawman fallacy: Misrepresentation or oversimplification of opponent’s position. 

Ballot boxes and elections have been in place since the beginning of this republic. The current administration—duly elected by a clear, non-violent majority—ran on a theme of “hope” and “change.”

Question 6:

I haven’t suggested anything. I’ve asked you if you and your leaders have contingencies for handling unforeseen events such as that which is stipulated. It’s clear that you do not.

Question 7:

It’s not at all vague. If you and your leaders have a massive demonstration and have miscalculated the government’s response are you and your leaders prepared to accept responsibility for your miscalculations and ineptness as leaders?

”My current Social Security will not keep me out of the streets, if the time, or opportunity, arises. That’s another advantage of non-violent protest; the recruits don’t need rigorous training or attributes that make them suitable for killing.

“The streets” would mean demonstrations, would it not? And if I recall you even claimed to be a veteran of having your head bashed in; you really are in a terrible pickle here. Your examples of non-violent achievements aren’t, and your own words prove that your belief of non-violent action being possible is a wet dream because you’ve experienced the reactions and consequences that I’ve stated would happen.

Question 8:

Strawman fallacy: Misrepresentation or oversimplification of opponent’s position.

You’ve had ample opportunity to present evidence that a non-violent revolution is possible in the U.S. and you’ve failed miserably.

In your strawman argument you represent fear as a totally negative force. It is not. Fear is a state of being or condition that can be, and often is, a life saving evolutionary trait.

Why would I be fearful? I’m not the one advocating non-violent revolution reform, you are. I’ve clearly stated that I believe change is coming and that it is inevitable. It simply will not be non-violent.

The major point of contention between us is that you believe, erroneously, that you can effect revolutionary type change through peaceful, non-violent action. I disagree and know that any action will produce a greatly disproportionate overreaction. (see video on link provided in following section) Any attempt to effect change that will have or be seen as having a negative effect on the profit margins and wealth accumulations of the ruling powers will be dealt with harshly. That’s a reality based opinion for which there exists a tremendous amount of evidence.

Report this

By nemesis2010, March 9, 2010 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

@ JdmysticDJ:

Greeting and opening paragraphs:
1. Ad hominem greeting
2. Several paragraphs attempting to pass off twaddle as creative linguistic endeavor. (in street vernacular; bullshite)

Question 1:

Yes, Ghandi does ring a bell. If I’m not mistaken he goes by the stage name of Ben Kinsley today. I saw him on the Letterman show a few weeks ago.

You have repeatedly called for non-violent revolution against the current government of the U.S.; I can copy and paste a shiteload of quotes if you insist.

You’re right Ghandi did not operate in the U.S. and that is VERY significant. First, the U.S. is NOT under colonial rule. Albeit might be a colony of Japan or China soon. Second, unlike India of the 40s, we are not basically a homogenous race of people. Does “melting pot” ring a bell?

Are you trying to say that Ghandi’s revolution for Indian independence was non-violent? Are you daft? During the civil rights movement in S.A. Ghandi was beaten many times and even imprisoned. Your Ghandi also backed the British against the Zulu. He not only encouraged his Indian countrymen to join the military but served in the ambulance corps. Wasn’t he the commander of a stretcher corps?

Did not your non-violent example recruit Indians—on behalf of the British—to serve as combat troops during WWI? I’ll cede that he did write a letter stating that he personally wouldn’t blow away other homo sapiens but like most great leaders Ghandi didn’t have a problem sending other people’s children to die for the cause.

Are you really going to insult our intelligence by trying to make a claim that Indian Independence was achieved without violence? Will I have to write about the floggings, imprisonments, beatings, massacres, etc. just to make you look more of an ass than you do now?

Question 2:

No, it is not based on a false premise. You have repeatedly used the terminology “non-violent revolution.” You are now switching to a much less volatile term: “reform.”  (See question 7)

The time is now but the opportunity isn’t? So why aren’t you out in the streets? You clearly state in your quote (provided below) that IF EITHER the time or opportunity arises your social security will not keep you out of the streets. Perhaps you’re feeling a little bloated and crampish this time of the month?

”My current Social Security will not keep me out of the streets, if the time, or opportunity, arises. That’s another advantage of non-violent protest; the recruits don’t need rigorous training or attributes that make them suitable for killing. Another characteristic of the non-violent is that they are not, only motivated by their own personal “best interests” as you are.” -JDmysticDJ

It’s an old trick that poltroons have been using to justify their inaction for millennia. Translated that type of statement means that someone is waiting for enough people to hit the streets so that he/she can remain far enough back that he/she risks little or no chance of having his/her head split open, yet still gets to impress the girls/boys by saying that he/she was at the demonstration and hopefully get laid.

Your futile attempt to set up blame for your and your ilk’s failure to act didn’t go unnoticed. I’m not a cynic. Unlike you, I live in reality. I know how humans behave. I haven’t attempted to discourage anyone from acting. I’ve only stated the truth about what they should expect as a consequence.

”A cynic points to the reality which others wish to ignore.”
-Ambrose Gwinett Briece

I don’t want to see innocent people getting hurt because of a bunch of wild-eyed poltroons and their miscalculations about dealing with power. If the cynicism of some is all it takes for your cause to fizzle, you haven’t much of a cause.

Question 3:

You don’t have a plan.

Report this

By nemesis2010, March 9, 2010 at 10:46 am Link to this comment

@ MarthaA:

You’re wrong. Fear is not a spirit. Fear is a state or a condition marked by feelings of agitation, anxiety, apprehension, disquiet, dread, trepidation, etc. It can also mean feelings of awe. But it is not a spirit. There are no such things as spirits. It’s time Americans crawl out of the medieval swamps of superstition and enter the 21st century. Fear is an evolutionary function that aids us in decision making. Fear can—and often is—a counterbalance to crazy ideas. It plays an important part in maintaining a civil society. To not fear having to suffer consequences for their actions of pillaging society is precisely why the ruling elite take control.

“All we have to fear is fear itself “ may have served FDR well at the time but Americans have more than enough platitudes, slogans, and jingoisms. Revolution is serious and fearful business. There is much to fear in a revolution, especially with today’s technology. In Amarillo, Texas, there’s a lunatic Christian talivangelist group harassing, filming, and informing on people who practice lifestyles not approved by their interpretation of the book of myth known as the Holy Bible.

The leader of this (terrorist?) organization supposedly is, or at least was, a security guard at a nearby nuclear power plant. I have read in the past few days that due to the controversy he has since been relieved of his duties. I hope that that report turns out to be true. We don’t need crazy people who believe that a non-existent god talks to them running free in nuclear power plants; especially as part of security. We’ve just survived 8 years of another religious loon’s crazy antics. Next time we might not be so lucky. I doubt many would shed a tear for Texas, but it’s containment that concerns me. 

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/04/texas-taliban/

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 9, 2010 at 3:50 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind

You make a good point. My advice to the Palestinians would be to adopt non-violent action.  I would also like to see Israel adopt a more measured response to Palestinian resistance, and I would like to see ceasefire agreements adhered to. Unfortunately there has been too much bad blood between the two sides. You must know that the Palestinians and Lebanese have suffered far more than the Israelis.

Clearly non-violence would not have had any value for the victims of the holocaust.

In order for non-violent action to be most effective, it requires a majority population versus a minority oppressor, as in India.

I believe Native Americans would have been better off if they had adopted a peaceful response to the westward expansion, the result would have been the same, but perhaps there would have been less bloodshed. Having said that; I wonder if you’re familiar with the history of Native Americans in California during the time of the gold rush? One can only speculate.

Sorry you don’s see the humor in my B.S., I’ll work on it.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 9, 2010 at 1:34 am Link to this comment

Nemesis2010

“We have the moral capacity to say no, to refuse to cooperate. Any boycott or demonstration, any occupation or sit-in, any strike, any act of obstruction or sabotage, any refusal to pay taxes, any fast, any popular movement and any act of civil disobedience ignites the soul of the rebel and exposes the dead hand of authority.”

Recognize the above? You should, if you read the article. It’s from Chris Hedges’ “Calling All Rebels.” Personally, I think that some of what he recommends is counter productive, and would lead to the consequences you fear and say the non-violent would be responsible for. I believe that “Any occupation or sit-in,” “Sabotage,” “Any act of obstruction,” or even “Civil disobedience,” would also undercut the actions of the non-violent, by alienating potential supporters, but I’m in agreement with the rest of the above quotation. Apparently Hedges thinks something should be done.

Do you recognize the following?

“…as one non-violent revolutionary told me recently—to see ”IF the right time or the right opportunity will arise.” Of course the ”IF” says it all. The right time or the right opportunity never arises. There is always something not quite right that disqualifies the current time or opportunity as being “the” right time or opportunity. It’s like the Second Coming of Jeebus; it ain’t never gonna happen!...”

In spite of everything I’ve said to you, you’re negative about my commitment. My intuition tells me that it’s not just me your negative about. Based on what I’ve observed, I’d say you are negative about nearly everything, but maybe not, apparently you have a secret pipe dream. (Incidentally, it ain’t never gonna happen!...” Is a double negative. If it ain’t “never” gonna happen!...” That means it’s going to happen sometime, in my case it will happen at the first opportunity. Get it!

“The fact is that if the American people really wanted to, they could bring the evil AmeriCorp empire to its knees within a few months. They could do this without firing a shot, without a single street demonstration, and without breaking any of the current fascist laws.”

So do you want to clue us in? I’m tired of answering your questions, now lay it out there, maybe I’ll have a question or two for you.

You follow your secret pipe dream by saying,

“But it won’t happen because you can’t get enough of them to willingly subject themselves and their families to the consequences of the actions needed in order to bring evil AmeriCorp down.”

Hey! Don’t be so negative, run it up the flag pole and see if anybody salutes.

Also you say,

“There is no left vs. right political system in the U.S. I thought that one as experienced and knowledgeable as Chris Hedges would know this.”

I guess we both have our points of disagreement with Mr. Hedges. However I think that my disagreement with Hedges makes more sense than yours does. Let’s see if I can convince you. You have two arms, right? One is a left arm, and one is a right arm, right? Let’s see if this reality will get you to see another reality? There’s a thing called a political spectrum. It’s used to identify political beliefs. Just like you, this political spectrum has a left arm and a right arm. Now it’s true that our current government appears to be ambidextrous, but it still has a left arm and a right arm, right? Here’s another way you can identify the left and right arms of our political system. Consider the work of congress; the right arm doesn’t want to work with the left arm. So…? There’s a difference between the two arms, right? Try this, stand up, hold your arms straight out from your sides. You’ll note that your right hand and your left hand are far apart, right? Here’s another bit of information. The distance between your hands is about the same distance as your feet are from your big ape brain.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 8, 2010 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment

jay1953, March 8 at 11:10 pm #

I’d have to agree.

JDMysticDJ is declared the winner by TKO.
Report this

By Donald Nygaard, March 8 at 10:59 pm #

At last!

Game, set, match to JDmysticDJ. My hat is off to you for taking the time to deconstruct and counter a series of sophistic questions, each of which seems calculated to pick a fight from a pessimist’s foxhole. More critical thinking such as that demonstrated by ‘mystic’ is exactly what this blog needs.

Thanks for writing.

Cheers!
*********************************

I see you got your “Amen Corner” going.

I’m confused now: Are you saying Stack was or was not a terrorist?

Then you quoted Gandhi, who advocated total non-violent means to drive the British out.  Wouldn’t the Palestinians be FAR more effective at disrupting the radical policies of Likud if they followed Gandhi’s lead? Gave NO reason of “self-defense” to Israel?  Fire rockets and send suicide bombers and kidnap soldiers and Israel’s going to respond with force.

But sit down and refuse to move, non-violently? How far could Israel go with force before she was FORCED to negotiate, regardless of whether Likud was in power or not?

Hell, even Tom Clancy suggested that around 20 years ago.

But I’m confused by your incredible blizzard of BS that went on for post after post after post.

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 8, 2010 at 7:10 pm Link to this comment

I’d have to agree.

JDMysticDJ is declared the winner by TKO.

Report this

By Donald Nygaard, March 8, 2010 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

At last!

Game, set, match to JDmysticDJ. My hat is off to you for taking the time to deconstruct and counter a series of sophistic questions, each of which seems calculated to pick a fight from a pessimist’s foxhole. More critical thinking such as that demonstrated by ‘mystic’ is exactly what this blog needs.

Thanks for writing.

Cheers!

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 8, 2010 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis2010 (subject to many aliases)

My devotion to the metaphysical yesterday was interrupted by the realization that my inanities were truly inane. This realization causes some embarrassment, and gives rise to the need for much future obfuscation. My attempt at linguistic invention was marred by the less than clever designation of “Bertyism,” and the inanity would have been reduced by simply designating them as being Bertrand Russleisms. However, this different designation would not erase the obvious inanities, nor eliminate the obvious, which you failed to mention, that this well meant attempt at enhancing communication has only made me guilty of the very loonieism I sought to combat. In my defense I can only resort to the allegorical or metaphorical (I’m not sure which would apply here) example of John Steinbeck in his book “Of Mice and Men.” “The best laid intentions of mice and men etc.) Clearly, I have revealed myself to be a Steinbeckian “Lenny.”  Fortunately my laymen’s doctorate in Psychology/Psychiatry has allowed me the facility for self analysis. I have been aware of this abnormality for some time now, something that you failed to notice by the way. Clearly my big ape brain would not be appropriate for implanting in a deceased big ape in order to create life. This realization is a harsh one, and has necessitated the need for much concealment, which has proved futile.

This embarrassing incident has caused me to seriously consider changing my “handle,” as you call it. I’ve been seriously considering “Zorro,” and “Batman,” but I fear that these “handles” would just be more inanity, which would easily identify me.  My soul requires honesty. Even using my current handle causes me some discomfort. If I were truly honest I’d reveal my Christian name, along with my social security, bank account, credit card, and pin numbers, but I will refrain, because doing so seems unwise somehow.

While “I’m in the mood for self disclosure, I’ll admit to the obvious. I also suffer from “Attention Deficit Disorder,” something you also failed to notice, which provides the explanation for my many digressions. I’ve noticed that boredom magnifies the symptoms of this disease, and oddly, when I’m confronted with other inanities my symptoms become worse, which explains why my symptoms have accelerated of late. 

All of the above admissions aside, I quite justifiably consider my self a savant in the areas of morals, ethics, and political stratagem.

Drawing on this confidence, I’ll answer the questions you asked

1. Is there an historical precedent that you can provide us with that would convince us that a peaceful capitulation of the U.S. government is possible? Upon what is your belief that this is possible founded?

Does the name Mahatma Gandhi ring a bell with you? Of course, Gandhi did not operate in the U.S., but that does not negate the effectiveness of his tactics. There are other examples I could offer, but Gandhi’s example should be sufficient.

2. Define for us what, in your view, would constitute the right time and/or right opportunity to initiate your non-violent revolution to overthrow the U.S. government.

This question is based on a false premise, I have never advocated overthrow of the U.S. government. I have advocated reform which would be achieved by non-violent action. In this case our situation is much preferable to the situation Gandhi faced. The time is now. The opportunity is currently not available, but could be in the future, if not effectively discouraged by cynics.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 8, 2010 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment

nemesis2010 *subject to many aliases) (cont.)

3. Once you and/or your leaders have decided to initiate action; what is the plan? What is that action that you and your band of merry revolutionaries plan to do that will convince the democratically elected U. S. government to non-violently capitulate?

The plan is to bring issues of the utmost importance to the forefront of debate, the action has already been described, and the capitulation would come from changes in policy necessitated by the political realities that would arise from successful non-violent action.

4. Have you and/or the leaders of this little rebellion considered how to appropriately handle the transfer of the government? To whom will the reins of power be transferred?

This question is again based on the false premise mentioned earlier. There will no transfer of government, only changes in policy, the reins of power will be determined by the ballot box.

5. Have you and/or the leaders of the revolution established any contingency plans should the government not comply with your demands and instead decide to make an example of you for the benefit of other like-minded fools?

As commented to earlier, attempts to make examples of people will be, and currently are, practiced. Like minded people would not be influenced by these attempts, and these attempts would only create more like minded people, which would facilitate political contingencies at the ballot box and by politicians. I suspect that your imagined examples are not realistic, and based on extreme cynicism. I’ll suggest that non-violent action is now necessary, in order to avoid the potentialities of your worst imaginings in the future. If your worst imaginings came to fruition, then all would be lost, and there would be no contingencies for the non-violent.

6. Have you and/or the leadership considered and established any contingency plans in the likely event that other powerful groups, who wish to take control of government, might attempt their own overthrowing of the government? Consider the situation: Government is scared into capitulation by your little troop of merry non-violent revolutionaries; how much more so to powerful and violent men lusting after power and who do not have any misgivings about littering the streets with your fetid corpses?

Again, this question is based on a false premise involving overthrow of government. However I’ll concede that there are violent groups who seek the over throw of democratic government, but these groups would be faced with the need for non-existent contingencies that you have pointed out. Are you suggesting that positive policies need to be avoided, out of fear of these real or imagined groups? Are you suggesting that these groups have available contingencies to overthrow the U.S. government with violence, and will do so in response to non-violent political action? If so, after more than 200 years, Jefferson’s famous quotation would at last have merit, but all this is based on extreme cynicism. Are we to live in fear, and submission because of imagined boogie men?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 8, 2010 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis2010 (Subject to many aliases) (cont.)

7. Should your and/or the leaders’ plans result in failure and the deaths of many of your fellow revolutionaries are you and/or the leaders prepared to accept responsibility for your ineptness and miscalculations? Can you deal with the knowledge that your madness cost the lives of so many and littered the nation with their fetid corpses?

Your question is vague as to which apocalyptic scenario you are suggesting. At the first hint of your apocalyptic vision, the perpetrators would be removed from power by the power of the ballot box, or vanquished by the power of those who take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The responsibility for their losses would be their own, and the responsibility for other losses would also be theirs, but again this is based on the worst possible of imagined scenarios. These nightmare scenarios have occurred in history, but they were successful because of non-action and not political action in opposition to these scenarios.

8. Have you and/or the leaders considered that your acts might trigger a violent counter-revolution—despite all of your best intentions—of pro-government devotees across the nation? How do you and/or the leaders plan to handle such an event should it take place?

This is redundant, it has already been addressed, and it is based on fear and cynicism.

9. Have you and/or the leaders considered the possibility of having to respond violently in order to save lives of your fellow revolutionaries? What safeguards are there to minimize casualties? How do you plan to care for the wounded?

Again, revolution is not the issue here. Referring to those who practice non-violent political action, in order to affect reform, as revolutionaries, is erroneous. Safeguards would be guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, or those who take an oath to uphold it. The wounded would be cared for as they always are, but I deny there would be the magnitude of wounded you cynically foresee.

10. Have you ever been in a fire-fight? Have you ever heard your buddy screaming and writhing in pain and want to get to him but are unable to because you’re pinned down and can only return fire? Have you ever held a comrade while he’s screaming about his guts being outside of his body instead of in and tried to console him, knowing that he’s bought the farm and has but a few more agonizing minutes to live? Have you ever seen the innards of someone’s skull oozing out of an open wound? Have you any of these experiences? If you are so squeamish that the term “fetid corpses” bothers you; how are going to face situations like those above should your grand scheme backfire?

The answer is a thankful no. My experiences are more related to non-violent action trying to end the reality you relate, and although those realities you mention are shielded from us today, they do exist today, and I see no option other than non-violent political action to end those realities. We have yet to reach the level of national conflict that existed during the Wars in Indo China, but even then, the scenarios you have speculated about did not occur.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 8, 2010 at 4:05 pm Link to this comment

EVERYBODY OFF!  I don’t want the sequence of my postings interupted by inanities or loonieisms.

Nemesis2010 (Subject to several aliases) (cont.)

You close with the following statement.

“Say what you want about Joe Stack, label him hero or villain, it took a lot of courage to fly that damn plane into a building. The guy was a true believer in his cause, be that cause right or wrong. Have you got the right stuff? You’d better think long and hard about it because once it starts girls and boys; it’s going to run its bloody and violent course.”

No I don’t have the “stuff” required to fly a plane into a building and kill innocents, but terrorists obviously do. Non-violent action is endorsed for the purpose of ending the “bloody and violent course,” and those who advocate non-violent political action, see their actions in just that way, and don’t believe that their actions will increase blood and violence, quite the contrary, and there is no possibility that those who advocate non-violent action would have any doubt about whether Stack was a hero, nor do we consider his act courageous. Like others who have committed similar acts, Stack’s act was madness, (According to those who advocate non-violence,) and we don’t consider him to be a “true believer,” by any rationale.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 7, 2010 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment

So, “Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid”.  NOT.  Fear is a spirit.  We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.  We must be about doing what we can to take our country back from fascist control.  If as a nation the entire populace does what they can to take our country back, the fascists will be unable to hold control.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, March 7, 2010 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment

Stack wanted to make his suicide to mean something more than just killing himself. Is it courageous to murder others in the accomplishment of this? Was he at war with the IRS so that makes him a soldier giving his life for his cause and not just someone who snapped at the end of his psychological rope? Are we seeing the opening shots of a brewing civil war? Will this help the oligarchs to seized power in a more obvious and straight forward way than the quiet incremental way they have been doing since 1980? The indications I see is yes they are ready to start a more open crack down. All it takes is a riot or enough attacks on gov’t buildings like the IRS one in Texas and the Pentagon in DC to give them cause.

Like I stated before, in a Stand Alone Complex they don’t have to be organized at all. If their mind set is close enough to each other they will act on their own. The more they cross the line the greater likelyhood more will cross the line to violence, murder and mayhem too as they gain momentum by previous actions validating their points in the first place. Watch for more to happen. Difficult to stem now that the anti-gov’t/ all bad meme has gone viral.

The worse kind of terrorism is the freelance, ad hoc, kind. No real rhyme or reason to follow. Just generalizations from a multitude of groups and individuals with a similar mind set incubating as the economy doesn’t improve for the rank-and-file.

Report this

By nemesis2010, March 7, 2010 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

@ JDmysticDJ and any other of you would be revolutionaries, terrorists, patriots, freedom fighters, etc. Especially those of you who believe that powerful, amoral men of the moneyed interest would surrender the reins of power non-violently simply because the people will it:

Amidst all this talk of revolution, these are but a few of the questions that I have for you. Now let’s see if you can set aside your asininity (<- JD specific) and answer these concerns succinctly. 

1. Is there an historical precedent that you can provide us with that would convince us that a peaceful capitulation of the U.S. government is possible? Upon what is your belief that this is possible founded?

2. Define for us what, in your view, would constitute the right time and/or right opportunity to initiate your non-violent revolution to overthrow the U.S. government.

3. Once you and/or your leaders have decided to initiate action; what is the plan? What is that action that you and your band of merry revolutionaries plan to do that will convince the democratically elected U. S. government to non-violently capitulate?

4. Have you and/or the leaders of this little rebellion considered how to appropriately handle the transfer of the government? To whom will the reins of power be transferred?

5. Have you and/or the leaders of the revolution established any contingency plans should the government not comply with your demands and instead decide to make an example of you for the benefit of other like-minded fools?

6. Have you and/or the leadership considered and established any contingency plans in the likely event that other powerful groups, who wish to take control of government, might attempt their own overthrowing of the government? Consider the situation: Government is scared into capitulation by your little troop of merry non-violent revolutionaries; how much more so to powerful and violent men lusting after power and who do not have any misgivings about littering the streets with your fetid corpses?

7. Should your and/or the leaders’ plans result in failure and the deaths of many of your fellow revolutionaries are you and/or the leaders prepared to accept responsibility for your ineptness and miscalculations? Can you deal with the knowledge that your madness cost the lives of so many and littered the nation with their fetid corpses?

8. Have you and/or the leaders considered that your acts might trigger a violent counter-revolution—despite all of your best intentions—of pro-government devotees across the nation? How do you and/or the leaders plan to handle such an event should it take place?

9. Have you and/or the leaders considered the possibility of having to respond violently in order to save lives of your fellow revolutionaries? What safeguards are there to minimize casualties? How do you plan to care for the wounded?

10. Have you ever been in a fire-fight? Have you ever heard your buddy screaming and writhing in pain and want to get to him but are unable to because you’re pinned down and can only return fire? Have you ever held a comrade while he’s screaming about his guts being outside of his body instead of in and tried to console him, knowing that he’s bought the farm and has but a few more agonizing minutes to live? Have you ever seen the innards of someone’s skull oozing out of an open wound? Have you any of these experiences? If you are so squeamish that the term “fetid corpses” bothers you; how are going to face situations like those above should your grand scheme backfire?

Say what you want about Joe Stack, label him hero or villain, it took a lot of courage to fly that damn plane into a building. The guy was a true believer in his cause, be that cause right or wrong. Have you got the right stuff? You’d better think long and hard about it because once it starts girls and boys; it’s going to run its bloody and violent course.

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 7, 2010 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

I want to address 3 things:

1. I don’t think anti-Semite or anti-Judaism are realistic terms to describe those that oppose Israeli policies. But because of thorough overuse we get stuck with the term anti-Semite. A more appropriate term in regards to Israeli policies would be anti-Zionist which would be inclusive of Jews who oppose Zionism.

2. As to my affirmation that Palestinians in general are not Arabs. The reason I make that affirmation was because many of the film clips and photographs I’ve seen I noticed that many time these supposedly Arab people had fair features, such as blond hair and blue and green eyes. Which led me into looking into the history of the Palestinians and their genealogy. Arabs are from Arabia not from Palestine. Granted, Arabs did conquer Palestine so it is not unusual that there is genetic mixtures with Arabs among the Palestinian population as there are also with converted eastern European Jews when they also intermarried with their Sephardi, and Semite, coreligionists. Most of the foot-soldiers in past Arab conquests were locals that converted to Islam. A similar historic example can be investigated in the Muslim conquest of of the Iberian peninsula. Many people assume that it was an Arab conquest. And even though some Arabs were in the conquering armies that entered Iberia most of the conquerors were ethnic Berbers from northern Africa that had been converted to Islam. The Berbers were genetically identical to the occupants of southern Iberia. So the genetic pool wasn’t drastically altered since Berbers and Iberians had close ties for most of history. Perhaps in Palestine the genealogy was altered a bit more given the proximity of Palestine to Arabia. Like I said I don’t have the links handy that I did my research on but if anyone is interested they can use search engines and I’m sure you will find them. Here is some that I found, there are many more:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.jewish/2008-01/msg00256.html

http://benno.newsvine.com/_news/2006/09/03/349246-illegal-knowledge-palestinians-and-jews-are-relatives

http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:Ogn1a-fWlckJ:kinoko.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~duraid/stolen_science/The_Origin_of_Palestinians_and_Their_Genetic_Relatedness_With_Other_Mediterranean_Populations.pdf+elsevier+palestinian+genetics&hl=da&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=mozilla

3. As to the Nemesis/JDMysticDJ exchange. I feel that it has been one of the most enjoyable forum threads I have read in years. I have laughed at the humor and sarcasm and the the arguments. Don’t remember doing that in awhile and I actually looked forward to the exchange. Boy, maybe I need to get a life. smile And yes of course it is relevant to this thread. Keep it guys. Most of the times they are a talking past each other and their disagreements are minor. But it’s good healthy semantic chess.

And just to keep this post relevant I’ll affirm again that, “Stack was indeed a terrorist”.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, March 7, 2010 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

And how does this dove tail with the actual topic of this forum? Anti-Semitism is too general a description considering that many in the area not Jews are however Semitic. Including many Palestinians. That is why Anti-Judaism makes more sence here. Otherwise both sides of this conflict are Semites against each other and cancels the Anti-Semitism rant out! No side of this conflict are lily white in the area of purity of action & response. Both have done atrocities just that it is asymmetrical and the Palestinians were there first should count for something.

The difference in how terrorism is used by our gov’t is the difference whether they are on “our” side or not. The Mujahadeen were “good” in the 1980’s but are now “bad” in the 1990’s onward. They are no different in what they do or believe it is all selfish perspective of our geopoliticos. (Using the Biblical mandate that if you are not for God then you are against God. Just substitute the USA/Corporation in God’s place.)

As for the incessant long winded rants of Nemisis2010 & JDmysticDJ which seem to be stuck in a circular file signifying nothing can be ignored as they do not pertain to the forum. I wish they did.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 7, 2010 at 10:52 am Link to this comment

Not a religious fanatic’s answer.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 6, 2010 at 11:37 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind

It was jay1953 who said that Palestinians weren’t Arabs. You have a tendency to lump together all those who you perceive to be your enemies.

You’re questioning my manly behavior? It’s you who have become as hysterical as a contentious woman (God love em’.) Incidentally, the mind is not the part a man F***s with. You need to cool your jets. You’ve become as loony as nemesis2010. (a.k.a. Big Brained Ape.)

I respect jay1953, he’s got excellent taste, and he’s an excellent appraiser of humor.  I think his comment is a little bit of a stretch, and not one that I would endorse, but it’s a minor point of disagreement. If Jay1953 and I should have a major point of disagreement, then he’ll be just another loony, in my book.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 6, 2010 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis2010 (a.k.a. Big Brained Ape)

This is volume two of my reply to you.

(I hope your cataloguing these volumes correctly; the first volume should be in the front, the next behind it, and so on. Properly done, it would be one, then two, three after that, and then you would continue numerically. If you have a problem with the math, I’m sure someone will be able to help you.)

I just had a nice respite from this tedium. I had a nice conversion with a pleasant, mildly retarded gentleman. We talked about the weather, sports, and whatnot. I envy him. He went off to watch old television reruns, while I must return to this tedium, with you.

“Also, your “if the opportunity arises” comment kinda says it all, doesn’t it? After reading that I came to the conclusion that the odds of you actually getting your head busted open in a vain attempt to non-violently overthrow the U.S. government are nil and none. It reminds me of the two criminals in the movie “Snatch” when they confront the hardened gangster Tony in the bar. They do it with two replicas while Tony has a real .50 Desert Eagle. If you haven’t seen the movie I suggest that you do as Tony gives them a class on the different types of balls that men have.”

“If the opportunity arises” I knew this statement would cause me trouble with you, but the extreme boredom you cause in me caused me to be lethargic. I guess I’ll have to elaborate now. In order for a demonstration to have any impact, it must have participation by a number of individuals. When I become aware of a number individuals demonstrating, it will create the “opportunity” for me to demonstrate. I suppose I could demonstrate by myself, but that would be an example of “Non-existential existence” (Bertyism definition #6.) These Bertyisms are useful, but I don’t want to be guilty of falling under their definitions.

Generally one doesn’t get their head busted at a small demonstration. Most often it’s just a matter of heavy police observation, photography, horn honking, sneers, and the occasional threat. Head busting usually occurs when small groups of demonstrators, can be isolated, by the police, from much larger groups of demonstrators. The procedure is to yell “GET OFF MY LAWN” a few times, and then commence with the head busting.

You like movies don’t you. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but movies aren’t real. Actually, they’re just fantasies provided for people so they can live vicariously. Some people don’t have lives, so this vicarious living provides them with a kind of surrogate life.

Citing the Ecclesiastic again, “Vanity of vanity, everything is vanity” Solomon might have been having a bad day when he said that, but I’ll suppose that all attempts have a degree of vanity in them, thus your description of a “Vain attempt.” If that’s true, it leads to the question, what was Carly bitching about? (That comment is just a vain attempt at levity I know; the reality is that excessive vanity was her bitch.)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 6, 2010 at 10:31 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis2010 (a.k.a. Big Brained Ape) Volume #2 (cont.)   

Is Tony your fantasy surrogate? What’s a .50 Desert Eagle? I’m guessing it is a gun of some kind. My knowledge of guns is somewhat limited. My father had an .375 H&H Magnum, a nine millimeter Mauser, Winchesters, models 94 and 97, a ten gauge nickel plated percussion cap shotgun, a 4 gauge percussion cap marketing shotgun (This gun is similar to the old deck cannon riverboat pirates used to have,) and some old antiques too tedious to mention. I once blew a poor unsuspecting waterfowl to smithereens with the H&H. My father pronounced me a man when I killed my one and only deer with the Mauser. What a nightmare that was, it still causes me remorse and shame. I shot the poor soul in the neck, but I had to shoot him two more times in the neck before he gave up the ghost. The Mauser makes a little tiny hole going in, but you could throw a football through the hole on the other side. You might have enjoyed the experience; there was blood and gore everywhere. My father and I used to bond by killing little birdies on the wing, so I’m familiar with the model 97 Winchester. (Personally, I would have preferred a good game of billiards.) You like movies so you might have seen “No Country for Old Men.” The guy in that movie ruined a perfectly good model 97 by sawing the barrel off. I got caught up in the fantasy when I saw that movie. I chose that shotgun wrecker as my surrogate, but he got killed. There’s nothing like getting killed to spoil a good fantasy.

Damn!I digress all the way to oblivion. Do you see what extreme boredom does to a person? Even my computer is bored; it said “fuck it” and kicked me off the internet. Oh, by the way, Stack was a terrorist. (I don’t want to get too far off topic.)

“Tony gives them a class on the different types of balls that men have? Types of balls? I can only think of two types of balls men have. There are the ones on their feet and the other ones. If you’re referring to the other ones, I knew there were different sizes but I didn’t know there were other types. Before you make another crass comment, I’ll point out that I require a XXX ultra large, steel reinforced jock strap, (for the most fertile only.) The lesson strikes me as being an example of extreme “loonieism” and it’s not one I would want to attend.

Finally, if you check the record (It will require a file search, it will be buried way in the back of the file,) I have not advocated for non-violent revolution, I have advocated for non-violent action, in order to reform, not over throw.

Whew! At long last I’ll have another respite from this tedium. I hope I answered your question sufficiently. You won’t receive another volume from me until Monday. Tomorrow is the day I devote to the metaphysical.

All in all, I’d say your above comment is a shining example of the old lucky #11 on the Bertyism definitions list (Loonieism.)

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 6, 2010 at 9:42 pm Link to this comment

Mystic:

Doesn’t it hurt to twist yourself into such knots? First you say “anti semitism” is a mis-nomer because Arabs are Semites, then you say Palestinians aren’t Arabs, then you say that in real life there is no anti -semitism against Jews.

MAKE UP YOUR F***ING MIND!  Or be a man and admit you were wrong.  I expect neither.

Report this

By prosefights, March 6, 2010 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment

Israel or anyone else bombing Iran nuclear electric generation sites may be the worst idea in history.

All countries appear to face increasing electricity costs and possible future shortages.

Israel and the US may face the wrath of the world if Iran sites are attacked according to Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Israel is hard to control.

Perhaps the Obama adminstration should issue a preventative declaration?

If Iran nuclear electricity generation sites are attacked by Israel, then the US will immediately attack all Israeli electric generation facilitites. 

Get message Israel?

Google ‘nojeh nsa the investigation’ for details of our stolen $22,036. And our Iran connection.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 6, 2010 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind

When I say anti-Semitism is real, well that’s obvious. From my experiences, with all social strata, during social interaction, in schools, work places, and other venues where social action is practiced, anti-Semitism is nearly non-existent. When political discussions come up, there are those who are angry about Israeli policies, but that anger is almost never expressed in terms of anti-Semitism.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 6, 2010 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind

Anti-Semitism is real, but the term is most often used as a tool of propaganda, intelligent people know that this term is often used for that purpose, others do not. The term is most often used to cast aspersions, and divert attention away from issues that have been raised. Another example of this type of obfuscation would be the term “Self-hating Jew,” used to discredit Jews who criticize Israeli policies.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 6, 2010 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis2010 (a.k.a. Big Brained Ape)

This is an addendum to volumn one of my reply to you.

I’ve noticed your creative linguistic uses of words like “Sturmtruppen” and “Sturmmann” you appear to have some talent, but if I may, I’ll suggest that you not waste your talents on heathen who practice the sub category of “Cortex Snapping” (Under the heading of “Mental Gymnastics.” Bertyism #9.)

“It tends to work better in written communication as one cannot see the look of incredulity on the face of the commenter.”

Looks of incredulity would add emphasis, so why does it work better in written communication? This is an unwieldy way of saying “I’m incredulous.”

Speaking of looks of incredulity, mine all ceased, in reference to you, when you commented that “Fetid Corpses” are necessary in order to be from tyranny. (Just a comment, I realize this comment is wasted on you. Do you see what I mean when I say communication is futile between you and I.)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 6, 2010 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis2010 (a.k.a.  Big brained ape)

You say,

“Don’t quit your day job!”

This comment illustrates the reason why I find communicating with you so futile. Apparently you lack the faculties of recall and discernment. I have already indicated to you that I don’t have a day job, or a night job. Forgive me, but I must say, damn! You are dense! It’s true, other than the normal occupations of life, I only have this simple little, insignificant, avocation to amuse me, but I find this simple little avocation more rewarding than many of the day and night jobs I’ve had. However, that amusement disappears instantly while practicing this avocation with you. Strangely, I’m overcome with extreme boredom when attempting to communicate with you. I guess it’s because of the obvious futility. Never the less, hoping that my avocation will be a tad bit therapeutic in alleviating the extreme boredom elicited by you, I’ll dabble a little.

You have asked some questions, the answers to these questions I will attempt to squeeze through the filters of your big ape brain. Regarding your post in its entirety, I’ll suggest that you refer to the list of Bertyism definitions I gave you. Definitions #1, #10, and #11 would be most applicable. Actually, definition #1 applies best to your posts, #10 and #11 are merely descriptive. Sadly, so far, you have lacked the intellectual depth which would make the other definitions useful.

I’ll put your - Definition #10 – comments in parenthesis, and then respond to them. Your questions which seem to be derived from a - Definition #1 – dialectic will also be placed in parenthesis and answered. Of course definition #11 applies to all your comments, so parenthesis will not be needed.

I’m quite proud of my creative linguistic endeavors. They simplify matters greatly.

“I’m feeling much better about you now, since this last piece of incoherent tripe demonstrates that you’ve been made to face the truth and the blow was—allegorically speaking—like that of a blow from an angry, self-righteous, baseball-bat wielding, bent on vengeance, jack-booted member of the evangelical Sturmtruppen beating an evil, non-violent, placard carrying, socialist ghey. It’s painful, I know, but be grateful it isn’t anything like the real world pain delivered by an angry, self-righteous, baseball-bat wielding, jack-booted, evangelical Sturmmann extracting vengeance for jeebus and his daddy.”

After reading this comment I see that I misjudged you. I may find some of the other Bertyism definitions will be appropriate. In order to save you from the necessary collation; I’ll simply state the definitions.

It’s good to know that you’re feeling better, hang in there, some day you may be fully recovered. However, this comment suggests that recovery is a long way off.

You’re allegory is riddled with violence and is erroneous because there is no pain involved, and according to liberal sexual therapists, “Beating me “ghey” is not possible, if I get your demented attempt at linguistic creation correctly. Perhaps it is merely a “typo.” The Bertyisms that apply here are “Ego enhancing self delusion,” and the old stand by “loonieism.” Perhaps, “Metaphysical Metaphysics” would apply, but I suspect that this definition is beyond your abilities of comprehension.

Try as I might I’m still unable to find any reference to this jeebus, let alone his daddy, but according to you, the influence of these two is greatly to be feared. I’ll do more research, but I suspect “loonieism” is at play here.

Well this has been volume one of my reply to you. I’ll appeal to your sense of fairness and ask you to not bombard me with other “Loonieism” before I finish with the other volumes, or I will be overwhelmed by “Loonieism” that I will not have the time or inclination to reply to, other than by simply referring to the tried and true “Loonieism.”

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 6, 2010 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment

Palestinians are referred to as Arabs. And some of them are through intermarriages. Similar to non-Semitic Jews from conversions acquired some Semitic genes. I’ve read research by credible sources that has shown that a sizable majority of Palestinians are not Arabs. The arabization of the entire Palestinian population is another Israeli myth.

Do your research.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 6, 2010 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment

Mystic:

You continue to mis-represent me in your efforts to convince others (and yourself) that my arguments are illogical.  You haven’t been the first to try and probably won’t be the last, here at TD.

Your statement that you support a 2-state solution (My LONG-TIME UNCHANGING POSITION) is the first time I EVER remember you saying so.  I’ve been saying that’s the way to go for years.

Virtually ALL the critics here of Israel imbue the Palestinians with some sort of saintly angelic virtue—and the Israelis as demons.  It’s a factual mis-representation.

You also do not differ between the long-term Israeli interests and actions, and the destructive policies of Netanyahu and the Likud, of whom I have ALWAYS been critical, highly critical.

Sure, Arabs are a Semitic people (and, no, “Palestinians” are not a separate Semitic group—they are simply Arabs who hail from Palestine). Ethiopians are “Semites”, too (and many are Jewish).  But “Anti-Semitic” has long been the phrase referring to hatred of Jews.  I didn’t make it up. I didn’t invent it. It’s been “out there” in usage for at least a century and a half.  Wikipedia dates it back to 1860 and its usage as a “more scientfic” substitute for “Judenhass” or Jew-hatred. The term is nearly as old a “The Communist Manifesto” and pre-dates the American Civil War. Castigating me for using is duplicitous, as have been all your attacks on me.

It is about as duplicitous as saying “Blacks” aren’t black, they are brown so we shouldn’t call them “Black”. Besides, many Indians without a drop of African heritage are just as dark or darker—yet THEY are not “Black”.  Should we describe them as “Black”? 

I don’t give a rat’s ass if you apologize to me or not. Your “disdain” is of no consequence.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, March 6, 2010 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

Israel is the nuclear power in the area. Something that is constantly missed. Iran is running scared because they know. They probably have been told behind closed doors the real threat to them. The Israelis have the USA behind them keeping the UN a useless body. So it is up to us in the USA and those in Israel who must stop W.W. III from happening. But then if that did happen then oil would shoot up to $300 a barrel, our economy would falter and fall as would our gov’t & then the Dominionists would finally get what they have wanted since at least 1934—control over this nation. [End of the Deals, Bill of Rights, the might keep the Constitution, then their Crusade would begin.]

With the attack on the Pentagon by a man who told everyone what he was going to do and his parents called the authorities and yet they still weren’t ready! Imagine if it had been a trained group of armed men who told no one? There to shoot then set a big bomb. What would have happened then? Our security is a sick joke if even with prior warning nothing is done.

As for MarthaA‘s answer, the Bible isn’t one for this. But then the radical Zionists in charge do only as the Talmud and first five books say that count. It is the religious fanatics answer. Aren’t we fighting a Crusade against someone’s else version in the GWOT?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 6, 2010 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind (cont.)

Again, you frequently accuse those who are opposed to Israel’s actions as wanting to cause Israel’s destruction. In my previous criticism of you I flippantly accused you of being nuts. I now think that that comment should not be considered flippant at all. Seriously, I’ll suggest that you need to re-examine your attitudes towards Israel, and cease making these groundless accusations. These accusations are either an attempt at obfuscation, or a sign of paranoia.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 6, 2010 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind

Thank you for posting your most recent post on this thread. I found it very instructive. As you know, I severely criticized you on another thread, concerning another issue. That criticism did include my observations regarding your attitudes and opinions about the issue now under debate on this thread.

After making that attack on you, I was bothered by a mild sense of remorse. I even spent a fair amount of time composing a post of qualified apology to you. Thanks to your recent post here, I see that that apology is not necessary.

This teaches me a good lesson, I need to trust my observations, and when I make valid criticisms based on those observations, there is no need to apologize.
If you were successful in banning hypothetical examples, metaphors, allegory, sarcasm, satire and all other concepts that can be useful during debate, only the facts will be left. If the facts will be all you have left to defend the actions of Israel; you will find that the defense of Israel’s actions are indefensible, by any accepted standards.

Your logic is faulty. Apparently you believe if a crime is committed, but another greater crime is committed, the first crime should be excused, and free from criticism.

I’ll suggest that there are several reasons why some people in this country criticize the actions of Israel. The first and most important would be that this nation has extravagantly subsidized the nation of Israel, and has to some extent, colluded with Israel in Israel’s objectionable actions. Another reason would be that some people object to hypocritical moral arrogance.

People who criticize the long history of Israel’s abuses and atrocities are not calling for the destruction of Israel, as you believe. They point out these abuses and atrocities, in order to point out the hypocrisy that has been so prevalent regarding this issue. This hypocrisy has been a serious obstacle to promoting a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Astute followers of recent history and global realities know that the support for Israel’s actions has had tragic consequences, and that the potential for additional tragic consequences is obvious; this is why they criticize the actions of Israel.

In my previous criticism of you, I called you an apologist for the actions of Israel. You denied that criticism and stated that I wanted to see the destruction of Israel. Clearly you are an apologist, and furthermore I do not want to see the destruction of Israel. I want to see a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and a two state solution. The legitimate Arab leaders are open to the two state solution, but Israel continues to create obstacles to that solution, which causes some to suspect that elements within Israel are not open to the option of a Palestinian state and seek a greater Israel, defined by ancient boundaries. Clearly there are some in Israel who advocate for the Greater Israel; the amount of support for this advocacy inside Israel is unclear, because of obfuscation.

Over the last few months I have observed your comments regarding issues that pertain to Israel. You frequently make accusations of anti-Semitism, ignoring the fact that Palestinians are Semites too. The fact that Palestinians are Semites is, of course, a matter of semantics, but these charges of anti-Semitism are useful to the proponents of Israel’s policies, and bring to mind Orwellian concepts of propaganda. I’ll suggest that instead of using this anti-Semitism accusation, those who wish to accuse the opponents of Israel should use other terms. Other terms that might be equally false, but would eliminate this Goebbels like propaganda.

Report this

By nemesis2010, March 6, 2010 at 11:18 am Link to this comment

@ Night-Gaunt:

Kudos!

Report this

By nemesis2010, March 6, 2010 at 11:16 am Link to this comment

@ Ray1953:

If I was any calmer I’d probably be sleeping. I don’t get emotional over these discussions. I do apologize; not because it’s a flippant remark—it was meant to be—but the “you” is meant as 3rd person plural, not 2nd person singular. I should have written it less ambiguously.

Report this

By nemesis2010, March 6, 2010 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

@ JDmysticDJ:

Don’t quit your day job!

”Are you out of your mind?” hasn’t anything to do with psychological or psychiatric analysis. It is—in the world of the non-delusional—an expression of incredulity. It tends to work better in written communication as one cannot see the look of incredulity on the face of the commenter.

I’m feeling much better about you now, since this last piece of incoherent tripe demonstrates that you’ve been made to face the truth and the blow was—allegorically speaking—like that of a blow from an angry, self-righteous, baseball-bat wielding, bent on vengeance, jack-booted member of the evangelical Sturmtruppen beating an evil, non-violent, placard carrying, socialist ghey. It’s painful, I know, but be grateful it isn’t anything like the real world pain delivered by an angry, self-righteous, baseball-bat wielding, jack-booted, evangelical Sturmmann extracting vengeance for jeebus and his daddy.

Also, your “if the opportunity arises” comment kinda says it all, doesn’t it? After reading that I came to the conclusion that the odds of you actually getting your head busted open in a vain attempt to non-violently overthrow the U.S. government are nil and none. It reminds me of the two criminals in the movie “Snatch” when they confront the hardened gangster Tony in the bar. They do it with two replicas while Tony has a real .50 Desert Eagle. If you haven’t seen the movie I suggest that you do as Tony gives them a class on the different types of balls that men have.

”A man has got to know his limitations.” –Dirty Harry Callahan

I must confess that you have piqued my curiosity about one thing and if you’re not holding any animosity toward me; I’d be very interested in knowing just how one goes about overthrowing the government of the world’s only super-power with hand-held placards and marches. What do you write on them; ”You stink!? What? What are the slogans, messages, or whatever that strikes such laughter cachinnation fear into the hearts of some of the most amoral Homo sapiens on the planet that the entire government non-violently resigns, leaving all the institutions in place, and how does a new government take over? I’m really interested in learning if you’re of a mind to enlighten.

Since this topic is about terrorism—or what defines terrorism—I have to ask; what would you do should AmeriCorp legislate that any criticism of the government is unlawful an considered an act of terrorism? Under such laws any demonstration would warrant immediate violent reaction from the government. What happens to your revolution under such circumstances? Does it get put on ice? Wouldn’t it be a better strategy to start the revolution in earnest immediately BEFORE such restrictive laws on civil disobedience can be legislated?

Like I said; your non-violent revolution has piqued my interest and I’ve many, many, questions of interest for you and your merry band of revolutionaries.

Well gotta go, my 12 year old beckons attention and I prefer not to type while under the influence. Enjoy your weekend.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 5, 2010 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment

Biblical.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 5, 2010 at 9:55 pm Link to this comment

Bibical.

Report this
jay1953's avatar

By jay1953, March 5, 2010 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment

By MarthaA, March 6 at 12:08 am #


Israel is not perfect, but Israel can not be destroyed.  All nations will hate Israel and some will sooner or later decide to try to destroy Israel, but at that time my God by His power will protect Israel.  A Christian’s life is forever sealed in Israel’s New Jerusalem.

Cucu.

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook