Press for truth!

[Hellbound]

Off course it´s not simple. And i also have no solution
for it. But it could be a good start to make friends,
not enemies - am i wrong?

Yes.

 

[Dog Town]

Well, i think you talk about Saddam Hussein, right? Mhmm, i
wonder why the USA installed him a long time ago? A fiasco
in foreign policy, is´nt it?

Have you ever been friends with someone, and now you aren't?
It happens! The enemy of my enemy is my friend! Those relations can, and do change. People change. Simple enough?

 

[Stellafane]

Off course it´s not simple...

But you were the one who said it was simple. Now you're contradicting yourself.

And i also have no solution for it...

An honest admission -- but in that case, don't criticize those who feel that some solution, however imperfect, must be implemented, because doing nothing is not an option.

But it could be a good start to make friends,
not enemies - am i wrong?

Of course you're not wrong. Only a psychotic would think it's better to make enemies than friends; it's hardly a revelation -- even we weak-thinking Americans get it. The problem is, how do you make friends with those who hate you, who have dedicated themselves to killing you, who have done violence to you -- who in short, have no interest in being your friend, unless you give up all your own freedoms and become exactly what they want you to be? I would love to be friends with every country and culture in the world. But until they reciprocate those feelings, "making friends" is not merely simplistic, it isn't possible. And I say that not because I don't understand, but because I understand all too well.

 

[Oliver]

Nice strawman.

I never said forget about it. IN my opinion, we should have done more to make amends for it. BUt it's not a terrorist act. That's the difference. We intended to destroy a military hideout, but had bad information. Terrorists did not mistake the WTC for a military airfeild. They did not mistake the hundreds of civillian passengers on a civillian airline for soldiers.

Yes, it was no mistake of these al-quaida-minority-dumba$$es.

And I'm sorry, but peace does NOT mean respecting other views, wherever they come from. I DO NOT respect the view of ANY one who believes in genocide, such as those who follow radical Islam. I do NOT respect the believes of those who would supress the freedom to speak, to live as one wishes, and to otherwise act in wahtever way one wishes (without harming others). We should respect the views of those who think the U.S. should be destroyed? That ISreal should not exist? How? We CAN'T respect all views because many of them are directly contradictory.

Yes, i also don´t agree with everything. But i try to show
a better way instead beating a neighbour because he is
a holocaust denier, for example.

And besides, the only views currently being disrespected is radical Islam. No one is disrespecting the Muslim view on any sort of instiutional or organizational basis.

Maybe radical islam comes from hate against west? Maybe
hate against west comes from interferences from the western
world?

You, however, seem to feel free to disrespect the views of everyone involved, aren't you violating your own principle?

Not from a "parents" view of "two children" fighting each
other instead beeing constructive.

"Respect all beliefs, no matter where they come from" is non-workable, ciontradictory, illogical nonsense. It can't be done. It's the type of extreme moral relativism I was talking about, that leads to nonsense.

This is what laws are made for. Iraq was against
international law, guantanamo also - from europen
view. depleted uranium has been titled in german
media as Quote: "Americas own weapons of Mass
destruction".

 

[Oliver]

But you were the one who said it was simple. Now you're contradicting yourself.

An honest admission -- but in that case, don't criticize those who feel that some solution, however imperfect, must be implemented, because doing nothing is not an option.

Of course you're not wrong. Only a psychotic would think it's better to make enemies than friends; it's hardly a revelation -- even we weak-thinking Americans get it. The problem is, how do you make friends with those who hate you, who have dedicated themselves to killing you, who have done violence to you -- who in short, have no interest in being your friend, unless you give up all your own freedoms and become exactly what they want you to be? I would love to be friends with every country and culture in the world. But until they reciprocate those feelings, "making friends" is not merely simplistic, it isn't possible. And I say that not because I don't understand, but because I understand all too well.

I said making peace in such a scope is simple?

To think something is impossible - makes it impossible.
My point was that ignorance leads to some terrible
things, but as far i can see, i made some big steps
in a positive direction.

But we´re drifting far away from the topic - shall we
start a new thread in politics?

 

[Stellafane]

I said making peace in such a scope is simple?

Indeed you did. When I asked "So you're saying that it doesn't matter who started it, so long as it ends?" you responded thus:

Yes. It just that simple. Peace means respecting other views. Wherever they come from....

...To think something is impossible - makes it impossible...

Never said it was impossible.

...My point was that ignorance leads to some terrible things, but as far i can see, i made some big steps in a positive direction...

You just can't stop being insulting, can you? So now I'm guilty of "ignorance," but fortunately you're around to bestow upon me the wisdom of your "big steps in a positive direction"?

...But we´re drifting far away from the topic - shall we
start a new thread in politics?

With all due respect, Oliver, I'm pretty much done with you. You started by insulting me -- in fact, all Americans -- by claiming we cannot think properly. That was an incredibly bigoted and prejudicial statement, one that you have made no attempt to address or correct. So I can only think that you truly believe yourself a superior thinker to me, based on the fact that I'm American and you're German. Sorry, but I have no interest conversing with bigots. Further, you've insulted me in other ways, particularly in suggesting my lack of agreement with you was due to my inability to understand you or the world situation. And your response to that was to spout self-evident banalities like "it's better to make friends than make enemies" as if this were some stupendous philosophical breakthrough that we unlightened barbarians have never heard before.

No thank you Oliver -- short of a string of apologies from you that I have no expectation of receiving, I have no further interest in discussing anything with you.

 

[Oliver]

Okay, now you show exactly how biased you are. You want to pull into things that happened decades ago? Does this mean I should hold you responsible for Germanies actions say, around 1940?

Huh? Did i say that americans are responsible to hiroshima
or something? Of course you´re not. It brought peace, but
it was a gov-decision - and an act on innocent civilians.
A terror act - the japanese people would say.

The radical elements in Islam have done this, and continue to do so. Sorry, but no leg to stand on here. IN fact, the U.S. has often gone to war FOR those who believe differently. Look at Bosnia...

Bosnia was a good decesion of the UN. And about terrorists:
They have to fight these people in their own country. But there´s
no lobby because of anger against the west.

Sure both sides may be wrong, that wasn't my argument. However, both a jaywalker and a murderer are breaking the law. That doesn't mean they're equivalent, even if both are wrong.

I did´nt say they´re both equivalent. But that´s why we have
laws to both tipes of crime.

 

[Oliver]

I did not say it´s impossible. No thank you Oliver -- short of a string of apologies from you that I have no expectation of receiving, I have no further interest in discussing anything with you.

Quote: "not merely simplistic, it isn't possible."

You´re geting childish, Stellafane. I did´nt insult you
just because i made general statements. So i apologize
if you feel personally insulted.

And i apologize that i´ve personally insulted you as
reacting childish.

 

[Stellafane]

Quote: "not merely simplistic, it isn't possible."

You´re geting childish, Stellafane. I did´nt insult you
just because i made general statements. So i apologize
if you feel personally insulted.

And i apologize that i´ve personally insulted you as
reacting childish.

Last reply I'm going to bother to make to you: I never said peace was impossible, I said making friends with those who hate you and want to kill you is impossible. You're twisting my words in a way that's little short of lying.

And as for your "general statements" that Americans can't think clearly. I'm not supposed to be insulted by this? It's "childish" to take offense when someone makes a bigoted statement about Americans, when I am one myself? By that reasoning, a woman is being "childish" if she takes offense to a comment to the effect that "all women have inferior brains." After all, that's a "general statement," not a personal insult, right?

The problem is, you're a bigot, but can't even see yourself for what you are. And you presume to lecture me on the evils of fascism -- I suggest you get your own house in order before you worry about mine.

 

[Oliver]

Have you ever been friends with someone, and now you aren't?
It happens! The enemy of my enemy is my friend! Those relations can, and do change. People change. Simple enough?

I made this expierience with friends, too. And i
know that sometimes such things happen. It´s a
big difference between one person and
friendship with countries.

 

[dirtywick]

This is what laws are made for. Iraq was against
international law, guantanamo also - from europen
view. depleted uranium has been titled in german
media as Quote: "Americas own weapons of Mass
destruction".

To be fair, Europeans have to shoulder a large portion of the blame for their actions in relations to Iraq, but haven't. If it wasn't for Frace and Germany and Russia and China abusing the Oil for Food program, and obvious reason for their continued delay in taking any action against Iraq, this whole war could have been avoided. Of course, don't hear about that much, just a whole lot of finger pointing at the US.

Also, it's no secret Americans have WMDs, but I highly doubt they're talking about DU. If they are I wouldn't trust them as a very accurate news source. Sure, we use DU tipped shells because they're pretty effective, but they destruction, including the radiation, is hardly "massive".

 

[nathanmcginty]

Man -- yeah, actually it is most of the same stuff -- only this time they focus on the stories of some 9/11 widows. i'm only at the 15:00 mark, but they already brought up the Payne Stewart jet and the "no steel framed building had ever fallen by fire before".

But..but...but...A PLANE FULL OF JET FUEL HIT THE BUILDING. IT WASN'T JUST THE FIRE....WHY DO THEY FAIL TO MENTION THAT PART???!!!

my head hurts. i'll just stop now.

 

[nathanmcginty]

Not to mention the fact that I'm sure that the majority of the footage in this movie wasn't licensed. I guess nobody cares anymore. Kickass. I've got some movies to make.

WHOO-HOOO. Fifteen posts.

 

[GlennB]

To be fair, Europeans have to shoulder a large portion of the blame for their actions in relations to Iraq, but haven't. If it wasn't for Frace and Germany and Russia and China abusing the Oil for Food program, and obvious reason for their continued delay in taking any action against Iraq, this whole war could have been avoided. Of course, don't hear about that much, just a whole lot of finger pointing at the US.

Not really. The war was founded on Iraq's supposed WMD, not failures to observe any sanctions protocol. Iraq didn't have WMD. Failures by anybody in the "Oil for Food program", or anything else, can never create WMD where they didn't exist.

My own country (UK) certainly does have to shoulder it's share of the blame though.

 

[gumboot]

Hello everybody, hello Andrew.

May i ask you to follow our discussion from the point
when i think i started to shift to this issue again?

Right.

Oliver.

I have answered you. No, people were not confused or surprised about who carried out 9/11. No one was surprised at all. Look at everyone's accounts of what they were doing on 9/11. Take note how many people thought "terrorist attack" as soon as the second plane hit.

Secondly, no I do not believe Al Qaeda's antagonism towards the west is about foreign policy. I believe that is their publicly stated "PR" reasons. I believe it about as much as I believe the US invaded Iraq to "spread freedom".

Al Qaeda wants to establish a global Islamic state. That is their STATED mission and their organisational policy.

Those are my answers.

-Andrew

 

[dirtywick]

Not really. The war was founded on Iraq's supposed WMD, not failures to observe any sanctions protocol. Iraq didn't have WMD. Failures by anybody in the "Oil for Food program", or anything else, can never create WMD where they didn't exist.

My own country (UK) certainly does have to shoulder it's share of the blame though.

Well, not necessarily. Perhaps if those influential countries hadn't been profitting so much from keeping Iraq the way it was, there would have been more UN support to properly enforce sanctions to begin with, long before this war even started, perhaps before the intelligence that suggested Iraq had WMDs was gathered.

All speculation, of course.

 

[gumboot]

You know the difference between "islamists" and "moslems", do you? Your CT buddies are unfortunatly a very large number of people. I didn't speak of the people on this forum alone. But if you want examples here, i think it's safe to say that at least gumboot and MarkyX are convinced that they are a dangerous threat and want to take over the world.

Woah, hold on there ace.

You'd do well to not put words in people's mouths. I believe radical militant islam is a REAL threat. I believe, not dealt with, they have the potential to become a DANGEROUS threat.

Much like pre-WW2 Germany. Was Germany dangerous in the 1930's? Not really. Were they a "real threat". Hell yes. Did anyone try deal with the threat? No. Did the "real" threat become dangerous? You bet your ass it did.

Same again for the Roman Empire. Were the Goths dangerous in the early/mid 4th Century? Not really. But they were a "real" threat. Were they ignored? Yup. Did they become a "dangerous" threat? Certainly.

How about my own country's history?

Was the Maori kingi movement a dangerous threat to the new British-New Zealand government? Nope. Were they ignored? Nope. Did they turn into a dangerous threat? Nope. Would they have, if they hadn't been dealt with? Probably.

So, now you know my stance. But that's, of course, not exactly what you claim.

I don't believe the various radical militant islamic movements are united, or operate under a single leadership (much as given groups might try to present that). I do not believe they currently pose a serious threat to the west. I believe their goal is ideological, not "practical" (in other words it's a "vision" rather than a "we have black helicopters flying over the US poised to invade").

It's hardly:

Most of your CT buddies believe in a vast and sinister conspiracy to take over the world. Those EEEEVIL islamists.

Is it?

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

Yes, it was no mistake of these al-quaida-minority-dumba$$es.

And the west intends to destroy these "al-quida-minority-dumba$$es" Any objections?

Yes, i also don´t agree with everything. But i try to show
a better way instead beating a neighbour because he is
a holocaust denier, for example.

What would you do if it was the neighbour beating your children because he was a holocaust denier?

Maybe radical islam comes from hate against west? Maybe
hate against west comes from interferences from the western
world?

Radical islam pre-dates this.

This is what laws are made for. Iraq was against
international law

Please state which international law.

guantanamo also

Please state which international law.

from europen
view. depleted uranium has been titled in german
media as Quote: "Americas own weapons of Mass
destruction".

German newspapers said the 1995/6 Mt Ruapehu eruptions spewed out lava and were caused by French nuclear testing at Mururoa.

Depleted Uranium has repeatedly been proven to not cause significant health risk as used in combat. That is the opinion of the following organisations (based on extensive research):

World Health Organisation
European Commission
European Parliament
United Nations Environment Programme
United Kingdom Royal Society
Health Council of the Netherlands

Did the German media read all of the investigations by these organisations into DU?

-Andrew

 

[Oliver]

Good morning, everybody.

Hello Andrew,

it´s seven o´clock in the morning and i have
not much time to to give you a large number
on articles about your questions, so i add
the first fitting articles i find regarding
your questions and my perspective of seeing
these issues.

Q;And the west intends to destroy these "al-
quida-minority-dumba$$es" Any objections?

Yes and No, Andrew. It had be a better way if
the middle-east had fight the problem itself.
But as i mentioned earlier: There is no general
lobby because of a "general mind" against
the western world, my personal conclusion
during what i´ve learned so far.

Q: What would you do if it was the neighbour
beating your children because he was a holo-
caust denier?

If i try to answer in the same symbolically
way, i would say that it was´nt my neighbour
who beated my kids. To be specific, it was
the kids from his neighbour and other neigh-
bours kids around the world, acting in small
cells like the former hamburg-cell.

Source: Wikipedia/Al-Qaeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Quaida
"The origins of the group can be traced to a few
weeks after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in
1979, when a cadre of foreign Arab mujaheddin,
financed by bin Laden and independent wealthy
Muslim contributors, joined the fight against
the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan."
(I still wonder about the Bush-BinLaden business-
connection, did you hear about this?)

Source: bbc.co.uk "Who is Osama Bin Laden?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1551100.stm
"American officials say his associates may operate
in more than 40 countries across Europe and North
America, as well as in the Middle East and Asia."
(A lot of Neighbours with agressive children, but
fight all countries? - Beside my view that i don´t
see a serious threat of al-quaida for everyone,
everyday. Do you - and why? Off course they must
be stopped - like every other terrorists, too.
Stopping capital flows and money-contributors
instead bombings?)

Q:Radical islam pre-dates this.

How big is radical islam? For someone it´s very small
and no threat - for some all muslims are radical, wich
is a very dangerous kind of thinking.

Quoting from earlier:
"but fight all countries involved?" - the key
to this problem is a better understanding to muslim
people about the west and their intention to not fight
muslim ideologies and from western people to muslims.
Military interventions are the "oil in the fire" of radical
people there. A problem that should been fought from
the muslims itself. I know it would´nt work in the
current situation, Andrew.

Qlease state which international law.

Source: 2003 invasion of Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
On March 20, 2003, the invasion of Iraq began. This
was claimed by some (Media spread this widely here,
remind this for later: First Mind is the most resistent
Mind) to be a violation of international law, breaking
the UN Charter (see Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Interview with former president Jimmy Carter
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,431793,00.html

Qlease state which international law.

Source: humanrightsfirst
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/detainees/foreignnationals.htm
"Most of the Guantanamo detainees have been held since
2002, and have not met with a lawyer, family or visitors.
The administration has periodically transferred detainees,
returning them to their home countries for release or
continued detention. But the Pentagon has not indicated
by what standards or rules detainees may be eligible for
transfer. Families of a number of the detainees have
challenged the legality of the Guantanamo detentions
in U.S. courts. A decision as to whether U.S. courts
have jurisdiction to consider the claims of the Guantanamo
detainees is expected from the Supreme Court this summer."
(Summer is over - results? i have to look later to this
issue)

Guardian UK/Falconer condemns 'shocking' Guantánamo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1871628,00.html

Spiegel/Learning to Walk without Chains
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,433886,00.html

Kofi Annan against guantanamo:
http://www.un.org/radio/story.asp?NewsID=3953

AlJazeera/Iraq child prisoners abused by U.S. forces – Report
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=9194

Q: Did the German media read all of the investigations by
these organisations into DU?

German articles: (sorry,in german)
http://www.daserste.de/wwiewissen/thema_dyn~id,5c6qozoa672221ev~cm.asp
Depleted uranium casts shadow over peace in Iraq
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3627
Wiki/Depleted Uranium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Health_consideration

The results are still pending as far i´ve learned.
The Problem here is "peoples mind" again, and
"Peoples Mind" has nothing to do with sience, that´s
why this kind of "global thinking" within a country
is dangerous (Was: Holocaust (I´ve tried to explain
that during most parts of this thread - nobody under-
stands it, right? It´s everywere and most people
don´t see this fact: "Everything has two sides of
truth - like a coin - !both! are the real truth"))
Do you know what i mean, Andrew?

If you do so - what do you believe does the average
citizen from an english-spoken country think about
islam or muslims? I´m not talking about higher educated
people and i´m not trying to speculate. What do you think
is the "gerneral mind" there? Are there automatic
connections in these minds from "muslims - to radical
muslims - to terrorists"? In a average mind, not yours?

 

[gumboot]

Yes and No, Andrew. It had be a better way if
the middle-east had fight the problem itself.

That's not good enough. The nations of the Middle-east have demonstrated, over the last three decades, that they have no intention of seriously dealing with Islamic Terrorism.

The United Nations is charged with the responsibility of dealing with threats to international security. Terrorism has been recognised as such a threat by the UN. The UN must deal with it. Whether the countries of the Middle-east like it or not.

If i try to answer in the same symbolically
way, i would say that it was´nt my neighbour
who beated my kids. To be specific, it was
the kids from his neighbour and other neigh-
bours kids around the world, acting in small
cells like the former hamburg-cell.

You completely missed my point. You talked of not using violence to address hatred. We're not talking about hatred. We're talking about acts of violence. Still want to deal with them by ignoring them? I don't.

Source: Wikipedia/Al-Qaeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Quaida
"The origins of the group can be traced to a few
weeks after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in
1979, when a cadre of foreign Arab mujaheddin,
financed by bin Laden and independent wealthy
Muslim contributors, joined the fight against
the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan."
(I still wonder about the Bush-BinLaden business-
connection, did you hear about this?)

The Bin Laden family own the largest construction company in Saudi Arabia. The Bush family are directly involved in activities in Saudi Arabia. There is nothing significant about this at all.

What is foolish is those who make the leap to a connection between a PARTICULAR Bush and a PARTICULAR Bin Laden. For no apparant reasons.

By the way, the Wikipedia summary of OBL is a bit simplistic.

The Mujahedeen in Afghanistan were funded by a range of sources including money from the Saudi government channeled through the ISI as well as a number of private funding organisations including a large number in the USA like MAK.

The ISI wanted an official representative of the Saudi government sent over to manage the funds, as an official gesture of support. I believe they wanted a Saudi prince involved. The Saudi's weren't keen on this, so compromised by sending Osama Bin Laden - as a representative of a very important Saudi family.

Thus Osama Bin Laden came to manage Saudi funds being channelled through the ISI to the Mujahedeen.

Beside my view that i don´t
see a serious threat of al-quaida for everyone,
everyday. Do you - and why?

I'm not sure what you mean by "for everyone, everyday" but yes, I consider Al Qaeda has the POTENTIAL to be a serious threat.

How big is radical islam? For someone it´s very small
and no threat - for some all muslims are radical, wich
is a very dangerous kind of thinking.

I have heard it estimated about 10-15% of Muslims are Islamic Radical Militants. That's obviously a minority of Muslims, but in a decade Islam will be the largest religion in the world. It is the only major religion that is increasing its percentage share of the world population.

At current stand, 15% of Muslims is 180 million people. Hardly a small problem.

A problem that should been fought from
the muslims itself.

Should. But they won't. So we have to.

Source: 2003 invasion of Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
On March 20, 2003, the invasion of Iraq began. This
was claimed by some (Media spread this widely here,
remind this for later: First Mind is the most resistent
Mind) to be a violation of international law, breaking
the UN Charter (see Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq)

The UN Charter is not international law, it is an agreement for membership of an organisation. In any event, the Charter of the United Nations stipulates that any member can collectively or individually use military force to protect itself from anything it perceives to be a threat.

I didn't ask for an article in which people CLAIM the invasion breaks international law. I am quite aware that people have made this claim. I want to know WHICH LAW has been broken. I will answer for you. No law has been broken.

Source: humanrightsfirst
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/detainees/foreignnationals.htm
"Most of the Guantanamo detainees have been held since
2002, and have not met with a lawyer, family or visitors.
The administration has periodically transferred detainees,
returning them to their home countries for release or
continued detention. But the Pentagon has not indicated
by what standards or rules detainees may be eligible for
transfer. Families of a number of the detainees have
challenged the legality of the Guantanamo detentions
in U.S. courts.

Again, I didn't ask for links or a whole bunch of examples of people who claim the detentions are violating international law.

WHAT LAW?

State the law and relevant section.

For clarification, POWs can be held indefinately. They do not have the right to be visited by relatives or lawyers. They are not being held for crimes, or for trial. They do not require being charged. They are not entitled to any communication with the outside world whatsoever. POWs can be transferred to other POW prisons at any time.

Many German POWs from WW2 were held by the United Kingdom for years after the war ended - one man technically remains a POW to this very day.

German articles: (sorry,in german)

I don't speak German. Surely you can answer this simple yes or no question directly. Read the articles, and tell me, do the writers refer to these studies, or not?

The results are still pending as far i´ve learned.

The organisations I listed have COMPLETED studies. They have presented their findings. They are historical studies, not current unfinished ones.

The Problem here is "peoples mind" again, and
"Peoples Mind" has nothing to do with sience, that´s
why this kind of "global thinking" within a country
is dangerous

"People's minds" are irrelevant. All that matters is what the laws state, and what scientific study demonstrates. You cannot justify a demonstratably false claim simply because you can find people who believe it.

(Was: Holocaust (I´ve tried to explain
that during most parts of this thread - nobody under-
stands it, right? It´s everywere and most people
don´t see this fact: "Everything has two sides of
truth - like a coin - !both! are the real truth"))
Do you know what i mean, Andrew?

No. What you're saying does not make sense.

If you do so - what do you believe does the average
citizen from an english-spoken country think about
islam or muslims? I´m not talking about higher educated
people and i´m not trying to speculate. What do you think
is the "gerneral mind" there?

To make such an assessment is nothing more than speculation. Impossible to say. I suspect the majority of "average" people regard Muslims with distrust and apprehension due to Islamic Terrorist actions. I also believe the majority of "average" citizens will not admit this if asked by the media.

I would argue that the majority do not consider ALL Muslims to be terrorists, but this is irrelevant. Muslim Terrorists do not wear a uniform.

-Andrew