RE: Pardalis: "anti-semitic garbage"

[Tailgater]

That's my agenda here, Tailgater: Don't accept a stupid: "We are good - the rest is evil". I'm fully aware of the fact that I'm wont be loved for pointing out a more gradual world then the "White and Black" world portrayed by US-Media and US-Government. And I don't believe it's wrong to explain it to "Black&White"-thinkers.

I understand that, and I think we started to have a conversation about it before. But, in trying to represent the black to the white, you usually come off as thinking all black. Unfortunately, if people paid enough attention in history class, they wouldn't need media to fill them in. I understand the anger from US involvement in the past, BUT what are the alternatives to non-US involvement? Maybe better, maybe worse. Maybe the region would all be part of Soviet bloc2. We will never know. The US tried to support governments that worked against the red tide and didn't always choose the best people to lay with. I think my last post touches on that enough. Those things are also not the ONLY reason. The propoganda and training camps in the middle east enures that generations of children hate the west out of fear and brainwashing (see Islamic mouse thread). It does not help that there is a mix of anti-west religion and politics. There are many sides to the wars, politics, and allies chosen in the middle east that most of us here could not completely grasp.

 

[Tailgater]

That's my agenda here, Tailgater

IMO, that is the problem. You shouldn't have an agenda.

 

[Oliver]

IMO, that is the problem. You shouldn't have an agenda.

Communication wouldn't make sense without agendas, would it?

 

[Oliver]

I understand that, and I think we started to have a conversation about it before. But, in trying to represent the black to the white, you usually come off as thinking all black. Unfortunately, if people paid enough attention in history class, they wouldn't need media to fill them in. I understand the anger from US involvement in the past, BUT what are the alternatives to non-US involvement? Maybe better, maybe worse. Maybe the region would all be part of Soviet bloc2. We will never know. The US tried to support governments that worked against the red tide and didn't always choose the best people to lay with. I think my last post touches on that enough. Those things are also not the ONLY reason. The propoganda and training camps in the middle east enures that generations of children hate the west out of fear and brainwashing (see Islamic mouse thread). It does not help that there is a mix of anti-west religion and politics. There are many sides to the wars, politics, and allies chosen in the middle east that most of us here could not completely grasp.

Well, call me a romantic Dreamer or Liberal - but I think it would have been a good Idea to show the world that justice and equality of rights is what we, the western world is about. That would have demoralized many radical propaganda and ideologies.

 

[Tailgater]

Communication wouldn't make sense without agendas, would it?

No, it's the opposite. It restricts real communication.


a·gen·da [ ə jéndə ]


noun (plural a·gen·das)

Definition:

1. list of things to do: a formal list of things to be done in a specific order, especially a list of things to be discussed at a meeting


2. matters needing attention: the various matters that somebody needs to deal with at a specific time
What's your agenda for today?


3. personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias
Of course she's in favor, but then she has her own agenda.

 

[Oliver]

No, it's the opposite. It restricts real communication.

BS. If everyone would love US-Politics, the whole forum wouldn't make sense.

If Women and Men would have the same agendas, all the communication would be irrelevant.

If you and me had the same agenda, there would be no reason to start a controversial thread, because controversy itself wouldn't exist.

 

[gumboot]

Okay, accepted. So 1% of 99% is not entirely correct. Go on.

Um, no. That's not how it works. You have, by proxy, made an enormous number of claims, without a shred of evidence to support any of them. A cursory inspection of one claim reveals it is false. Until you provide some evidence, your claims should be rejected.

Remember: You still prefer the "Freedoms" explanation instead the "Foreign Policies".

Um, do I? Evidence? Do you know what a false choice fallacy is?

-Gumboot

 

[Tailgater]

Well, call me a romantic Dreamer or Liberal - but I think it would have been a good Idea to show the world that justice and equality of rights is what we, the western world is about. That would have demoralized many radical propaganda and ideologies.

At what point in the timeline? Would propaganda have stopped Soviet or Chinese intervention in similar regions in the world? I agree with you on some levels, but at what point (especially during the cold war) does the west sit back and let opposing nations nation build through using smaller countries as pawns without doing the same or at least countering by supporting an opposition. Your post is a very generalized considering you put forth over half a century of history.

 

[Oliver]

Um, no. That's not how it works. You have, by proxy, made an enormous number of claims, without a shred of evidence to support any of them. A cursory inspection of one claim reveals it is false. Until you provide some evidence, your claims should be rejected.

Um, do I? Evidence? Do you know what a false choice fallacy is?

-Gumboot

Are you kidding? I made a huge list of evidence. Just because you're not able to debunk it doesn't mean that I never provided evidence.

Well, let me cite Pardalis here: "I have no clue if it's true, but like Gumboot, I don't like the source because Mr. Bush didn't confirmed it." /irony

Oliver, when citing another forum member, either provide a link to the post or use the quote function, which automatically provides a link to that post.

Don't do this again.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[Oliver]

At what point in the timeline? Would propaganda have stopped Soviet or Chinese intervention in similar regions in the world? I agree with you on some levels, but at what point (especially during the cold war) does the west sit back and let opposing nations nation build through using smaller countries as pawns without doing the same or at least countering by supporting an opposition. Your post is a very generalized considering you put forth over half a century of history.

At every point in time concerning the Cold-War. I don't know about the Chinese because it's hard to understand their world-view, but it would have shortened the cold-war with the simple, Russian mind-set. After all, the Russians are pretty "West-Minded". It was a stupid Macho vs. Macho game, wasn't it?

 

[Tailgater]

BS. If everyone would love US-Politics, the whole forum wouldn't make sense.

If Women and Men would have the same agendas, all the communication would be irrelevant.

If you and me had the same agenda, there would be no reason to start a controversial thread, because controversy itself wouldn't exist.

You can have a different opinion and discuss those opinions. Since you use US politics as an example in your anti-US agenda (big surprise there), the polarization is a direct result of people sticking to an agenda and abandoning common sense or hard facts.

 

[Oliver]

You can have a different opinion and discuss those opinions. Since you use US politics as an example in your anti-US agenda (big surprise there), the polarization is a direct result of people sticking to an agenda and abandoning common sense or hard facts.

Well, show us how neutral you are:

Point out the flaws AND facts within the list - no matter how patriotic you are. That really would show that you have no agenda besides merciless facts...

http://rwor.org/a/v23/1120-29/1125/timeline.htm

 

[Tailgater]

At every point in time concerning the Cold-War. I don't know about the Chinese because it's hard to understand their world-view, but it would have shortened the cold-war with the simple, Russian mind-set. After all, the Russians are pretty "West-Minded". It was a stupid Macho vs. Macho game, wasn't it?

I think if you went back in time 50+ years, most people in the west would not consider the Soviets "west-minded". I don't think all the spying and small wars could be reduced to a "macho game" either. Ask someone from Poland how they feel about post-ww2 Russia.

 

[gumboot]

Are you kidding? I made a huge list of evidence. Just because you're not able to debunk it doesn't mean that I never provided evidence.

Well, let me cite Pardalis here: "I have no clue if it's true, but like Gumboot, I don't like the source because Mr. Bush didn't confirmed it." /irony

Oliver you're becoming more like a truther every day.

You have not provided evidence. You linked to an enormous list of claims. The website you link to does not provide any evidence whatsoever to support its claims. You do not provide your own evidence to support their claims.

Let's be very clear here Oliver. A claim is not evidence.

If I link to a post where an anonymous person said "Terrorists are dangerous" that would not be evidence. I could list 1,000 posts by anonymous people saying "Terrorists are dangerous" and it would not be evidence.

Evidence would be provided by demonstrating specific examples of Terrorists doing things that are dangerous. Evidence would be provided by quoting the statements of terrorism experts that terrorists are dangerous.

I say it again. You linked to a website that makes a large number of claims. The author of the website does not cite any evidence supporting their claims, and does not cite expertise in US middle-eastern foreign policy.

You do not cite any evidence supporting the author of the website's claims, and you do not have any expertise in US middle-eastern foreign policy.

Ergo, you have not provided any evidence to support your argument. Based on a number of demonstratively false claims in your argument, your claims should be summarily rejected until such time as you support them with evidence or expert testimony.

And in case you may have forgotten, Oliver, I am not an American. I have never been an American, and I have no desire to be an American. The opinion and approval of the current President of the United States is totally meaningless to me. Your pathetically weak attempt at an insult is noted.

-Gumboot

 

[Tailgater]

Well, show us how neutral you are:

Point out the flaws AND facts within the list - no matter how patriotic you are. That really would show that you have no agenda besides merciless facts...

http://rwor.org/a/v23/1120-29/1125/timeline.htm

How about I skip the BS with you and just admit the US has done some EVIL ****. And so has just about every empire, country, village, or whatever in the history of mankind. Mankind makes mistakes in history trying to prevent past mistakes. I already told you there was alot of true facts in the list and I also made a general statement of why and my opinion about it. My opinion may not be neutral, but I am not standing on one side of the fence saying "ok, 99% is right, 98% is right, 97%is right 50% is right....blah blah". I read what you posted, said it was a mix of thing, true and distorted, gave you an example of how I thought things were distorted, but in general I acknowledged much of the actual facts and gave my thoughts on it. People get tired of doing your homework. You post. They question. You tell them to back up your article. If they debunk it, you repost something else. Rinse and repeat. Why should I spend all day doing a line by line paper on something you took 5 minutes to get off the internet when a small sampling works just fine.

ETA:Arguing your opinion on a matter, discussing the facts, acknowledging what is right and wrong with each others arguements is not an agenda. Posting the same tired arguement every week from what you think is a "new" angle is.

 

[Oliver]

I think if you went back in time 50+ years, most people in the west would not consider the Soviets "west-minded". I don't think all the spying and small wars could be reduced to a "macho game" either. Ask someone from Poland how they feel about post-ww2 Russia.

You can't deny that the cold war pretty much was a "Look how strong and uncompromisingly we are"-game, wasn't it? Just think about the "communism-paranoia" in the fifties and sixties, that was pretty much ridicolous from todays point of view, wasn't it?



Today it's identical ridicolous. The difference is that the "New Enemy" and
"Evildoers" are Jihadists now.

You really buy that? Watch the US-Commie-Propaganda and rethink your answer.

Americans still believe every BS the Government tells, don't they?

 

[Damien Evans]

Oliver, why do you think that everything the US govt says is a lie?

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, why do you think that everything the US govt says is a lie?

Because Bush is in office. Well, at least I rarely remember any facts from him and his crew.

Anyway: I will go offline now and so I repeat the initial topic of this thread:

So is there anyone in here who is able to debunk these "Facts"?

http://rwor.org/a/v23/1120-29/1125/timeline.htm

Please refer to the Time-Table itself because I will not reply to attacks against the messenger.

 

[Tailgater]

You can't deny that the cold war pretty much was a "Look how strong and uncompromisingly we are"-game, wasn't it? Just think about the "communism-paranoia" in the fifties and sixties, that was pretty much ridicolous from todays point of view, wasn't it?

Today it's identical ridicolous. The difference is that the "New Enemy" and
"Evildoers" are Jihadists now.

You really buy that? Watch the US-Commie-Propaganda and rethink your answer.

Americans still believe every BS the Government tells, don't they?

That is hilarious. I love the ones that tell us weed will make us go crazy and kill our families. The communism-paranoia was quite ridiculous, but there were solid concerns by the west in the way Russia walled itself in post-ww2. Seperating what is a real concern and what is a false fear can be pretty hard. Jihadists need to be dealt with. How they are being dealt with is debatable, but not that they exist.

 

[gumboot]

That is hilarious. I love the ones that tell us weed will make us go crazy and kill our families. The communism-paranoia was quite ridiculous, but there were solid concerns by the west in the way Russia walled itself in post-ww2. Seperating what is a real concern and what is a false fear can be pretty hard. Jihadists need to be dealt with. How they are being dealt with is debatable, but not that they exist.

One thing I'm sick of is people like Oliver who immediately equate recognising a threat with being afraid.

I personally think Radical Islam has the potential, at current progress, of threatening the future of western civilisation in the next 50 - 100 years.

This is not some sort of irrational fear that leads me to this conclusion, it is a logical prediction based on my understanding of observable phenomenon. Many people probably disagree with me. That's fine. I'm sure others have solid arguments that come to a different conclusion. What I don't appreciate is when people like Oliver simply dismiss my views out of hand as a gross overreaction based on irrational fear.

The big problem is people like Oliver have completely the wrong mindset regarding Islamic terrorism. They think in terms of specific isolated attacks, with specific causes, that can be isolated from all other attacks.

As the writer of the "My plea to fellow Muslims" article discussed, this totally fails to take into account the foundation of Radical Islam - that is a very dangerous and intolerant ideology.

This ideology allows for acts of terror against opponents. All opponents. Yes, some followers of the ideology have issues with western presence in the Middle East, and thus they use the methods approved by their ideology to express those issues. So yes, a specific given act can be directly caused by western foreign policy.

But distaste for a US presence in Saudi Arabia, or distaste for British troops in Iraq is not their common ideology. That's just a particular issue some of them have. Some of them have issues with women in the west being treated equal. Some of them have issues with democracy. Some have issues with capitalism.

None of these are the root ideology that binds them together in common cause, and allows them to carry out terrorist attacks.

That root ideology is simple, and clearly explained in the article I mentioned before:

The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

Source

Yes, western foreign policy might dictate which targets are chosen. Specific individual attacks may be be a direct response to specific action by westerners.

But underneath all of this is their ideology. Even if the entire western hemisphere totally withdraws from the Middle East, in the eyes of these radicals, the world will still be Dar ul-Kufr. As long as there is no Pan-global Islamic State the world will be Dar ul-Kufr. As long as the world is Dar ul-Kufr the attacks will keep coming.

-Gumboot