|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
Celebrating 9/11 | from Fish - Tuesday, September 11, 2007
accessed 2443 times Celebrating 9/11 It’s that time of year again, time to be bombarded with sickening images of morons waving flags and “being patriotic”. I can hardly imagine anything more revolting. The entire 9/11 episode might have had a mercifully minimal historical impact if not for the idiotic, hyped up manner with which it was treated.
Some historians identify World War 1 as “the hinge of violence”, referring to the domino effect it set off in Europe and around the world. If WW1 was “the hinge of violence”, then 9/11 is “the hinge of douchiness”. I shudder when I recall the outpouring of “patriotic sentiment”; the albums, the books, the movies. Who cares? Why the hell are people patriotic, and how is it a “good thing”? Dedication to a set of principles or communal goals is one thing, but this unthinking frenzied flag waving, hugging and crying bullshit is quite another. In his book documenting WW1, “all quiet on the western front”, the author relates how the German youth marched to the recruiting stations quoting Horace and singing snatches from the Odyssey. What do the frantic mobs of Americans sing now as they robotically wave their flags? Somehow I doubt its anything so sophisticated.
How has the world changed since the event of this “hinge of douchery”? Well for starters, Americans are internationally despised or at least mocked. Even in Albania. When the self neutered western troops are butchered in the embarrassing war of Iraq, what are they dying for? In my opinion they lack even the questionable dignity of dying for a resource. I think the vast majority have died for the sake of several powerful men’s uncanny stupidity. When Iraqi rebels die, they know exactly what their dying for: Their people and/or their god. I wonder what comforting thoughts fill the minds of our mercenary troops in their final moments, as they sink into oblivion, far from their homes and loved ones.
“Great, I died for sand”.
I remember the day after the terrorist attack I went to karate class. The teacher called me to the front and asked what I thought about it. Even at that age I was fairly brilliant and I replied that it would be better if Americans would just carry on as if nothing had happened. He was shocked and must have thought my reply irreverent for he made a strange face. I had no idea how right I was. Following 9/11 we had about 3 years of shitty music and shittier movies. Upon visiting the states I was treated to a first hand taste of the obnoxious patriotism and new sense self-importance displayed by the uneducated idiots who comprise the US immigration service.
“Why didn’t you state your address, sir?”
“I don’t live in the US.”
“Why not, sir?”
9/11 spawned a chain of reactionary idiocy which six years later shows few signs of abating. First we had a massive reaction from the rabid Christian right, followed by an only slightly less moronic reaction from the left, and on and on, back and forth. I say fuck both sides. My eight point platform for a return to culture and international respectability is as follows:
1. Any song, poem or movie that contains the phrase “9/11” will be censored.
2. Anyone claiming “I speak to god daily” or “god tells me what to do” will be permanently bared from the presidency.
3. Anyone who implies that it’s somehow inherently wrong to show disrespect for the sacred items of an opposing religious culture will have their head beaten in by a metal bound Koran.
4. Any Christian who voted for the war in Iraq will be given a suit of mail, a helmet, a sword, and a white tunic with a red cross on it and shipped there. (by Venetian sailing vessel, so as to save on oil.) They must provide their own horse.
5. Anyone moaning and/or groaning about peace in the Middle East will be given a camel in exchange for the oil guzzling car they drove to the peace rally.
6. Anyone who produces anything which portrays Islam as a peaceful religion will be wrapped in an American flag and dropped into the center of Mecca.
7. Anyone, be they American or foreigner, who utters the accursed phrase “America, fuck yeah” will be shot on site.
8. Lastly, anyone comparing any event to 9/11, such as “It was Spain’s 9/11” or “Could this be Russia’s 9/11?”, will have their tongue removed. (Was Pearl Harbor America’s 9/11?)
That about sums up my stance, and now I must prepare for my 9/11 anniversary party. Something in the order of a large twin tower cake, which I will cut by stabbing with a knife while making whooshing airplane sounds. After that I will eat the cake out of my Turkish ornamental Koran plates, being sure to smear a good deal of ice cream on the Arabic text. This done, I will proceed to the roof of my Japanese apartment and wave an American flag while drinking vodka and playing the North Korean national anthem. Any passing Japanese will likely bow respectfully, doubtless fancying they are “partaking in my patriotic pain and loss”. After I have tired of waving the flag and listening to North Korean, I will retire to my room and watch a soviet film, leaving the cleaning of the Koranic plates until the following morning, and act which will hopefully enrage Allah. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from scarface
Saturday, October 11, 2008 - 17:50
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Your partly foolish question: “Why the hell are people patriotic, and how is it a “good thing”?”
Why the hell are you asking that question, and how is that a good thing?
“Why?” Those who are reluctant or unable to counterpunch when they are smacked in the face don’t earn the privilege of living or thinking for their own pleasure. What motivation do Americans have to be nice, if we get smacked in the face anyway? Patriotism is motivation. Freedom IS a privilege. No matter how elegant or reasonable, make no mistake, if you cannot or will not fight back, you will be smacked down. That’s the way evolution works. That is “why?” the human race came into existence. The French are stylish and rational. How long did they last against Hitler?
“Why?” do questions come dumber then that? (not a trick question) Americans never were liked very much by the elitist European club. Americans are not well educated, Americans are not reasonable. Who was it that struck the first blow against the indestructible British Empire? Gandhi? Who owns the world? That also was not a trick question.
Who got the media to pay attention to cults? Was it the educated and well spoken intellectuals or was it a single angry man in a moment of rage that did something crazy? Once again this is not a trick question. Now is an outstanding moment in time to awkwardly ask “why?”. If you ever figure out that one do let me know.
“why?” do you have to ask why Americans get pissed off, sing stupid songs and say stupid things when thousands of our citizens are slaughtered, our economy gets battered and some in the Arab world dance in the streets passing out candy to their children. (this is not a even question) Somehow I’m of the opinion that you will never know, not because you cannot. You don’t want to know.
Even if for a perfectly logical reason you don’t want to understand, you can further develop your intelligence by trying. Even if you would rather shove chopsticks in your eyes then read, it’s better to try. If you give up before you attempt understand you are doomed to your own ignorance, however clearly expressed.
For fucks sake, if you ask why, at least listen to the answers instead of attacking everyone who attempts to answer, or explaining to them how you are right. No one is entirely right and no one wrong. It is a scientific impossibility.
Please enjoy this charming video. Hope y’all like it, if not go ahead and thumb me. I’m a nasty dude, I like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcDEN_V8oQE
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | from cookies
Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 08:39
 (Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/
(reply to this comment)
| from false flag terrorism/911
Monday, September 17, 2007 - 14:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8545414779301935419
(reply to this comment)
| from for what its worth
Monday, September 17, 2007 - 13:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_vT4fsL5I
TITLE: For What It's Worth
Lyrics and Chords
There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
/ E - A - / / / / E D A C /
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
C
Another head hangs lowly,
Child is slowly taken.
And the violence caused such silence,
Who are we mistaken?
But you see, it's not me, it's not my family.
In your head, in your head they are fighting,
With their tanks and their bombs,
And their bombs and their guns.
In your head, in your head, they are crying...
In your head, in your head,
Zombie, zombie, zombie,
Hey, hey, hey. What's in your head,
In your head,
Zombie, zombie, zombie?
Hey, hey, hey, hey, oh, dou, dou, dou, dou, dou...
Another mother's breakin',
Heart is taking over.
When the vi'lence causes silence,
We must be mistaken.
It's the same old theme since nineteen-sixteen.
In your head, in your head they're still fighting,
With their tanks and their bombs,
And their bombs and their guns.
In your head, in your head, they are dying...
In your head, in your head,
Zombie, zombie, zombie,
Hey, hey, hey. What's in your head,
In your head,
Zombie, zombie, zombie?
Hey, hey, hey, hey, oh, oh, oh,
Oh, oh, oh, oh, hey, oh, ya, ya-a...
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From Lenin
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 02:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
United Forever in Friendship and Labour,
Our mighty Republics will ever endure.
The Great Soviet Union will Live through the Ages.
The Dream of a People their fortress secure.
Long Live our Soviet Motherland,
Built by the People's mighty hand.
Long Live our People, United and Free.
Strong in our Friendship tried by fire.
Long may our Crimson Flag Inspire,
Shining in Glory for all Men to see.
Through Days dark and stormy where Great Lenin Lead us
Our Eyes saw the Bright Sun of Freedom above
and Stalin our Leader with Faith in the People,
Inspired us to Build up the Land that we Love.
Long Live our Soviet Motherland,
Built by the People's mighty hand.
Long Live our People, United and Free.
Strong in our Friendship tried by fire.
Long may our Crimson Flag Inspire,
Shining in Glory for all Men to see.
We fought for the Future, destroyed the invaders,
and Brought to our Homeland the Laurels of Fame.
Our Glory will live in the Memory of Nations
and All Generations will Honour Her Name.
Long Live our Soviet Motherland,
Built by the People's mighty hand.
Long Live our People, United and Free.
Strong in our Friendship tried by fire.
Long may our Crimson Flag Inspire,
Shining in Glory for all Men to see.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jedran
Monday, October 13, 2008, 06:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Debout, les damnés de la terre
Debout, les forçats de la faim
La raison tonne en son cratère
C'est l'éruption de la fin
Du passé faisons table rase
Foules, esclaves, debout, debout
Le monde va changer de base
Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout
|: C'est la lutte finale
Groupons-nous, et demain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain :|
Second stanza
Il n'est pas de sauveurs suprêmes
Ni Dieu, ni César, ni tribun
Producteurs, sauvons-nous nous-mêmes
Décrétons le salut commun
Pour que le voleur rende gorge
Pour tirer l'esprit du cachot
Soufflons nous-mêmes notre forge
Battons le fer quand il est chaud
|: C'est la lutte finale
Groupons-nous, et demain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain :|
Third stanza
L'état comprime et la loi triche
L'impôt saigne le malheureux
Nul devoir ne s'impose au riche
Le droit du pauvre est un mot creux
C'est assez, languir en tutelle
L'égalité veut d'autres lois
Pas de droits sans devoirs dit-elle
Egaux, pas de devoirs sans droits
|: C'est la lutte finale
Groupons-nous, et demain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain :|
Fourth stanza
Hideux dans leur apothéose
Les rois de la mine et du rail
Ont-ils jamais fait autre chose
Que dévaliser le travail
Dans les coffres-forts de la bande
Ce qu'il a créé s'est fondu
En décrétant qu'on le lui rende
Le peuple ne veut que son dû.
|: C'est la lutte finale
Groupons-nous, et demain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain :|
Fifth stanza
Les rois nous saoulaient de fumées
Paix entre nous, guerre aux tyrans
Appliquons la grève aux armées
Crosse en l'air, et rompons les rangs
S'ils s'obstinent, ces cannibales
A faire de nous des héros
Ils sauront bientôt que nos balles
Sont pour nos propres généraux
|: C'est la lutte finale
Groupons-nous, et demain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain :|
Sixth stanza
Ouvriers, paysans, nous sommes
Le grand parti des travailleurs
La terre n'appartient qu'aux hommes
L'oisif ira loger ailleurs
Combien, de nos chairs se repaissent
Mais si les corbeaux, les vautours
Un de ces matins disparaissent
Le soleil brillera toujours.
|: C'est la lutte finale
Groupons-nous, et demain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain :|(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Fish
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 20:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, I don't think any of the above, though they are interesting ideas. However, I have always thought it redundant to post song lyrics, a practice which seems to be on the rise here since the advent of our sword slinging, cigar cutting, gangsta rappin "Don's" appearance a few months back. Since posting songs is both stupid and sappy, I took it on myself to post a song of equal relevance to the discusion as the "Oh, oh, oh, yeah, ya, yaaaa..." posted above. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from article..
Monday, September 17, 2007 - 11:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.rense.com/general78/sixyrs.htm
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from docs..
Monday, September 17, 2007 - 05:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://rinf.com/conspiracies/index.html
(reply to this comment)
| from geo
Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 20:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your position is fairly conventional. I suppose that a frustrating reality in any debate about this war, is that the people most vocal (on both sides of the issue) are often the least informed.
I think there is an information problem, but I'm probably in the minority. People arent debating based on values but on emotion (mostly undefined). Extra information would decrease the certainty of their belief or position, so it is avoided.
And why are we so sure that power does not know truth. Why dont we instead assume they know it, but choose to interpret it differently. Of course, this would make any argument more difficult to support, because you assume no moral high ground.
How is one "anti-war" are they against all/any war? Is war automatically a negative state. Should we fight against a despot who is imprisoning and gassing a large minority race of people, but poses no threat to us. Would they go to war against someone killing their family. And what is "War on Terror". If we are fighting a means, how will we know that we've won. Does it even make sense to go to war against a tactic. Both positions are not well defined yet easy to support.
Most of the anti-american hostility in iraq is not nationalistic or defensive. They are foreign groups that are supported by countries outside iraq who have their own occupational incentives (not freedom fighters). Most of the anti-iraqi hostility is partisan along ethnic/religious lines. Militias are taking advantage of the disorder, and attempting establish tribal dominance. Because of this, minority groups in any province (shia/sunni/kurd) would be reluctant to see the US leave. Of course, this does not mean we should stay. However, this is not the simple us vs. them situation, most people assume about iraq.
The idea that there is some "perfect war", that soldiers would be proud to fight and die in, is delusional. War's have always been fought for opportunistic and, at least somewhat, deceptive reasons. From my experience, especially with an all volunteer military, soldiers dont need the "perfect" reason to go to war, they just need a good reason. And I think people underestimate how attractive, fighting in a war is, especially to young men. Don't assume that the soldiers are not also being opportunistic, when 80% of them voted for bush in the last election.
The majority of the US military are not mercenaries. A mercenary is not national to a party in the conflict or residentially affiliated (most foreign volunteers would not be considered mercenaries). The motive's and tactic's of the parties involved have nothing to do with the term. You would come across smarter, if you were more familiar with the definition's, and usage of the word's you use.
I don't think you should be required to be reverent when talking about the military. I dont know where the idea that we need a disclaimer "I support the troops, but...", before talking about the military or the war, came from. Soldier's, for the most part, arent social workers. The idea of them needing constant "support" and encouragement is extremely patronizing. And what does one saying they "support the military" mean. Its moronic. I guess its in style, and people feel more attractive if they say it, often enough-Unless someone is sending soldiers buckets of cash, I dont think they should be aloud to make that claim.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from scorpion
Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 08:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
fuck the north korean dumb asses to. finally learn how to work technology thats decades old an they think there smart... seriously go back to being our slaves suits them better
(reply to this comment)
| From Samuel
Sunday, September 16, 2007, 10:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
One of these days, Scorpion, you're going to say the wrong thing, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. And you're going to get your ass kicked by a small crowd of North Koreans, or Mexicans, or "niggers", or "sand niggers" as you call them. Then you might see the error of your ways. I just hope it's not too late.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from scorpion
Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 08:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
fuck all the sand niggers if any of u fuks in here had somone in that building ud think alot different the states has a right to be over there bombing the shit out of them goat fuckers that hindu fuck killed a bunch of innocent ppl they asked for it now there getting it fuck those sand niggers who have no civilization they should bring back slavery for hindus!! well i guess they already have haha fukin cab drivers
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Nick
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 10:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Man, you really do come across stupid and ignorant in most your posts, but this has got to be one of the dumbest!
Hindus???? You may have as well called them Buddhists you stupid gook!
Your about as stupid as the gang that beat up a Seik dressed in a full turban after 9/11 as revenge to the Muslims.
And what are you talking about "Slavery for Hindus? Since when were Hindus slaves you dumb fuck? Unless you count British rule as slavery, which it was not.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from ErikMagnusLehnsher
Friday, September 14, 2007 - 18:34
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Most of what I would have to say in response to this article has already been said by others. One thing that hasn't been addressed is the phrase "our mercenary troops." The connotations of the word "mercenary" are such that, in my opinion, it's an acceptable slur. Connotations can vary from region to region and sometimes an insult can be unintended. On your next trip to the U.S. I would strongly recommend against walking into a bar and starting a discussion about "our mercenary troops."
Regardless of anybody's views on the unfortunate debacle that is Iraq, when you see someone back from Iraq hobbling through a grocery store on a prosthetic leg or with burn scars on their face, you're not looking at a merc...you're looking at a soldier.
(reply to this comment)
| From Fish
Friday, September 14, 2007, 20:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
I used the term “mercenary” in its most literal sense. I think most would agree that the vast majority of American troops enlisted for pay or to otherwise improve their social condition, rather than primarily out of patriotism. The Iraqi rebels on the other hand fight for their beliefs and way of life, not for monetary rewards.
Thus the Americans are mercenaries and the insurgents are not.
As an ancient example of what I mean, compare the armies of Athens and Imperial Rome.
The Athenians fought for their beliefs and way of life, and generally did so without pay. Citizens were expected to want to fight for their freedom or the enrichment of their society.
The Imperial legions generally fought for pay and land. While doubtless they felt a certain pride in their empire, this was not the prime motivator. Drawn from the lowest strata’s of Roman society, they fought to better their lot in life. They were a professional army, professional soldiers, and not normal citizens. They were mercenaries, and were often referred to as such.
The current US military obviously reflects the Legions, not the citizen Hoplites, and therefore is a mercenary force. In my opinion there is nothing inherently wrong or dishonorable about being a mercenary, particularly one in the employ of the US. Like the Roman legions, the US army is vital for keeping back the ravening barbarian hordes, and as such, its troops should be treated with respect.
This, however, does not alter the fact that they are mercenary troops. Getting burned or otherwise disfigured in battle does not make their reasons for enlisting any more altruistic. To imply otherwise smacks of vomit inducing patriotism, which I suspect you are guilty of. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Shaka
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 05:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hah! "Mercenaries". You have no idea how many times I've wished I was a mercenary. My problem is I love being a soldier but I hate almost everything about the Army. This absurd obsession with holding the moral high ground is a sure way to lose a war. If I was a mercenary I could do what I enjoy without the ridiculous suicidal rules of engagement we now have that as good as force us to fight tied up and blindfolded. Plus I would be paid far more than the pathetic salary Uncle Sam gives me. I could be a real soldier, not a damn missionary of democracy. I've often thought about finishing my term and becoming a private contractor.
I am a patriot in a sense. I love America, right or wrong. There is much that I dislike about the U.S., especially the religious right, but I'm still proud to be American. I may wish I was living outside the U.S. just cause I have more fun abroad but I'll always be proud of my ties to it. I especially love the fact that the Muslim world hates me. I hate them just as much. I don't care if we just want oil. In fact, I would have been happier to come here if they would have told me to fight for cheaper gas instead of this pointless endeavor of trying to bring democracy to primitive savages who neither understand it or want it. It would have made more sense. I don't care if they believe in what they're fighting for or defending their homeland or whatever. They want to exterminate my decadent, hedonistic, atheist way of life and say so repeatedly. I have no problem with destroying theirs.
I do think we go overboard with the 9/11 crap. That was a battle we lost, why keep re-hashing it? Let's celebrate bombing the living shit out of the Taliban in retaliation! I would faithfully crack open a beer or 20 every 11th of September and drink toast after toast to every dumb Haji that fucked with us who is now a dead Haji. Rest in pieces bitches! For now I'm a soldier because I want to be. And I get to wear a wicked cool hat. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Shaka
Sunday, September 16, 2007, 16:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't know, I haven't gone back yet. They'll have about a month of debriefing before they'll let us go on leave. I did go home for two weeks of leave in April. I found myself watching the cars driving close to us on the freeway. Are there one or two single guys inside or a family? Are they driving too close to us or erratically? When I'd hear a loud bang I'd think incoming mortar rounds but those are so common here we barely look up anymore so it wasn't really a problem for me at home. (reply to this comment) |
| | From thatata
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 10:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
At first when I saw your comments I wasnt sure if you were serious, an intrest and compulsion toward violence, youve made many of course, comments of this type, and Im not a moralist or a new ager, so perhaps I have no right to judge. But I still like to question, cause I just do!
So are you serious? If youre not joking its interesting all the same , actually its more interesting, going beyond morality, and mabye realizing what you like to do, or what kind of person you are, after all there is no God, you are an atheist, right? Everything is permitted! So let it be...
So the question is: why the need of patriotism to justify aggression?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Shaka
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 10:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't justify my aggression. I don't justify anything. I don't feel the need to. I am aggressive. I think some things can only be solved by force. The human race needs to be weeded occasionally. Morality is in the eye of the beholder to an extent. Yes, I push the envelope with my morals. But people who push the envelope are needed cause we can weed out the ones who go far across the line and we won't feel bad about it afterwards. Then you people with higher morals can look at us and feel better about yourselves. You're welcome. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Monday, September 17, 2007, 07:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Au contraire! Patriotism and 'national identity' are simply another level of family identity. It is the natural progression of loyalty to ones' immediate to extended family and then beyond in expanding concentric circles through local regional and then national communities.
Yes, it is commonly manipulated by political leaders - particularly when it comes to wartime - but the essence of it is far deeper rooted in humanity, and I would argue is in fact the cause of (rather than product of) our nation states - although it is admittedly being consistently undermined by liberals/left-wingers in recent decades. Shared 'identity' is what brings, and then holds nation states together - and conversely the loss of such identity is the catalyst for the break-up of countries.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Baxter
Sunday, September 16, 2007, 12:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'll probably get bashed for saying this, and I was avoiding this conversation but f__king A! Shaka, for the most part I agree with you. Not because I think I'm right or because I necessarily love my country, but because in general I find moral subjectivity to be sickening and its protagonists to often be myopic hypocrites. To an enormous degree I say live by your own rules, even if doing it means superficially subordinating yourself to a restrictive code of conduct (I am in the process of returning to military life myself). I may not share your patriotism, Shaka, but I think I know where your heart is. Because when you cut through everything else the moral soul of a soldier is built on two cornerstones: loyalty and the expedient.
The ancient world did not share this modern celebration of all things soft and cuddly. The ancients would celebrate success and scorn failure. Perhaps that's really what we do without accepting it (I mean, what depletes support for a western war more than heavy body bag return rate?). Who wants to imagine a world without Themistocles, Alexander, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Trajan, Attila, Temujin, Charlemagne, Leif Ericsson, Shin Shi Huang Ti, Napoleon, etc. History has always celebrated those who lived by their own rules and succeeded by them. Perhaps our ambitions are not nearly so great as theirs, perhaps we simply choose to take as close a look with our own eyes, rather than simply stand with conviction upon an established convention. I can rue and decry the world I live in, but I can do so without choosing to stand with everyone else.
This world was never a nice place: It was ugly and cruel when we got here, and when we are gone it will continue to be ugly and cruel in perhaps identical measure. Modernity is not civilisation, and civilisation is not universal. Practically the entire planet has in some way or other been touched by civilisation, and is still no less truly savage. (reply to this comment) |
| | From vac
Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 08:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Civilisation is a system of organisation within our species which changes in relativity to our evolutionary path. It is as progressive as the movement of our evolution. It is not fragmentented and (as a concept) is enfolded throughout nature in various forms, and expressed in various systems of organisation. The world was both and never "nice" and "ugly and cruel". It just is, and is all that is the case to us. It separates into various state of affairs which sometimes find the capacity of interpretation and reflection within perceivable paradigms. On the face of it life is essentially a cannablisitic system that advances through self-extermination, but perhaps animals with more complex reflective capacities can see that every expression of "self" or striving of an individual will is a part of a more complete enfoldment within a movement, with change as the only constant. With a Schopenhauerian understanding that our willing and struggling to change and against change is what unites and defines us, perhaps we will pity the enevitablity and futility of our own struggle with and through others and find compassion, the basis for morality?(reply to this comment) |
| | From thatata
Monday, September 17, 2007, 10:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
You won't get bashed. I haven't heard a single pacifistic view posted yet. The opinions seem to fall under "they hate us we hate them" or "I support the troops but I dont support the war" or "Might is right, the strong crush the weak." No pacifistic views!
As far as moral subjectivism, I could be wrong but isnt that the same as moral relativism? Are you also not a partaker of moral relativism, or could I be completely wrong?
"the moral soul of the soilder is built on two cornerstones: loyalty and the expedient." The exploits of world class conquers are impressive, the names of Gengis Khan, Alexander, Julius Ceaser , Napoleon, they're all so cool. But no one adds Hitler, and why! was he any worse than Attila! Is this the hypocracy of the modern age? What Hypocrites, damn this modern hypocracy.
Yes and I agree with this what you said about not simply standing with conviction on an established convention.
"The ancients would celebrate success and scorn failure" Perhaps with moderns we question what is "success" and what is "failure". What does it mean to succeed.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Monday, September 17, 2007, 16:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
No one adds hitler, primarily because he failed. That's the objective issue. As an aside, his particular legacy was particularly ugly because of it's modernity. No one has before or since seen anything like the systematic nature of the Nazi Final Solution. Nevertheless, had he succeeded in the full scope of his ambitions, we would doubtless celebrate him as a ruthless genius, rather than the neurotic control-freak megalomaniac he turned out to be. Beyond this it was Attila himself who was the driving genius behind the hunnic conquest. Outside of the political sphere, Hitler's flair was little advantage. He would made little headway in the absence of Guderian, Manstein, Reichenau and Rommel.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From thatata
Monday, September 24, 2007, 10:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, yes, the objective issue of course. On the otherhand you seem to ignore or sideline why I would put Hitler among the names of those, other great men. Don't you think perhaps he was the last non -hipocrite? The Nazis were honest in there way (my thought), though stupid ( I think sometimes to be "honest" a person might need a certain kind of stupidity, and the Nazis were both stupid and in a certain sense "honest"). I think that may have been the point I was trying to make.
By the way, what is everbodys opinion of Hitler, was he just bad, bad, bad, I know in TF he was considered bad yet not the picture of Evil itself, he wasnt the symbol of evil, in the way that some people see him?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Shaka
Monday, September 17, 2007, 23:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hitler was militarily incompetent. Whenever he tried to take personal command of a situation it was a disaster. It the last months of WW2 he personally ran the war effort into the ground. If someone like Rommel was in charge we may have won eventually through sheer numbers and resources but definitely not as quickly and completely as we did. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From thatata
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 11:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Welll mabye there was a misunderstanding, I thot you were making a dichotomy, between wimps and barbarians, in which case your Romans (wimps - or even wimps who should become barbarians, according to the logic of the quotation) would be fighting against Barbarians ( with, greviances whether right or wrong) But I could have been incorrect, all I saw was your quotation, which makes a clear dichotomy. Do you disagree?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Friday, September 21, 2007, 03:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
It was most certainly not a pure dichotomy. Although to the extent to which it could be described as one it classified the external 'bad guys' as the barbarians, and us, the civilised 'good guys' as the wimps. However, the purpose of the quote is to illustrate the logical conclusion of the pacifist ideology in that if the world were to follow their simplistically polarised point of view (peace = good, war = bad) then the only logical conclusion is that they will be the ultimate losers, because if you unilaterally eliminate a course of action from your options - and one with significant impact - then your opponent will always have an obvious advantage.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Shaka
Sunday, September 16, 2007, 13:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's funny but sometimes I have to really think about why I'm patriotic when so goddamn much about this country pisses me off. I think when it comes down to it, in this world of the strong dominating the weak, I like being part of the strong. I don't mind the world hating us because that means we are a real enough presence to hate and fear. We may be weakened at the moment because nobody in our government can pull their heads out of their asses, but we're still a power to tread softly around.
We're like a tired old beat cop. Our enemies are like crackheads. They may be able to outrun us some of the time but let us catch them and we will Rodney King the living shit out of them! Hopefully someone can wake the fuck up in time to make a U-turn and gain back some of what we've lost. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From thatata
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 11:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
""Yes, I push the envelope with my morals. But people who push the envelope are needed cause we can weed out the ones who go far across the line and we won't feel bad about it afterwards Then you people with higher morals can look at us and feel better about yourselves." -A little like something Ive heard in a movie, but good explanation. And by the way I told you Im not a moralist.
But its cool you found your honor, but what is honor? Patriotism?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From thatata
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 12:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well you're cool, even though it doesn't mean anything from a shit like me, but you're cool, you got your shit tight, you know what you want and you got your reasons, I mean you know yourself, hehehe with me reasons would go everywhere( do you know what I mean?)
Would it be a sin to ask you about the hedonistic, decadent lifestyle of American troops in Iraq. Do you got weed do you got women. Or does the violence make up for it?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Fish
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 09:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
I must say I have nothing but respect for what you are doing (wearing a cool hat), whatever your motivation. I heartily agree with nearly everything you stated, I fact, yours is one of the few comments that make any sense.
As I stated below, I believe the West has every right to do what they want, without the pretence of any altruistic reason whatsoever. I sincerely doubt the Romans or Athenians (the founders of Western civilization) sat around moaning and groaning over whether or not a war was "righteous". This new preoccupation with "rightness" is hypocritical in the extreme and recently borders on madness.
I believe the troops should be given a relatively free hand, and nature would take its course. If someone causes trouble, then they should be shot, period. Their friends will eventually get the point and be less bothersome for it. That is how wars are fought, or used to be, until the general public became so absurdly squeamish that they will gladly vote for a war, but don’t want to see any ugliness. Its insanity and how you soldiers can put up with it is beyond me.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Fish
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 02:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
God! Again with the stupidity. Did you even bother to read what I wrote?
"How dare you disrespect all those boys (and girls) like that??"
(As a brief grammatical aside, I would have used exclamation points rather than question marks to end that phrase.)
Where did I "disrespect" anyone? Who the hell are you? Are you in the military? And what is this “line” I “crossed” in my benign comparison of two ancient civilizations?
You said:
“…I've nothing but respect for anyone who puts their life on the line in service of their country, whatever their reasons for doing so…”
Right there, by your own admission, you are guilty of nauseating, unthinking and destructive patriotism. This is the “us” versus “them” thinking that has been the scourge of the world since Napoleon. According to you, severing ones country is always a thing that should be respected. Very good. In that case, next time Iranian fundamentalists blow up your metro system, I expect to hear you lauding their “putting their lives on the line in the service of their country”.
As for my article, I fail to see how it took “balls” to post it. What could possibly happen to me? Will the 9/11 police track me down? My article was good because it was both clever and incisive; there was nothing remotely “ballsy” about it.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 03:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
First of all my comment was made from an emotional base so I am well aware that it might not stand up to rigorous rational dissection. But I will try to clarify anyway.
You disrespected the troops by implying that working for money makes their sacrifices and those of their families void, and moreover that those who return maimed and possibly disabled for the rest of their lives deserve no respect for fighting so that you and the rest of us in the western world can have the freedom to sit on our asses in relative safety and say what we like.
As a brief aside, I won't take lessons on grammar, spelling or punctuation from someone who has not demonstrated superior understanding to my own.
I am not patriotic in the least, in the context of this discussion. My respect is given not for ideological or nationalistic reasons (since I have many objections to the war in Iraq, and will continue to hold them), but because of the realities of what those people who do serve in the army face whilst doing so in a war zone. I also did qualify that actually my wording was not entirely correct, and of course I do not indiscriminately respect all who serve simply because they are doing so. Similarly, I would not automatically count a soldier worthy of my personal respect. However, this is a discussion and in discussions generalisation is the only way to go, otherwise none of us could ever comment on anything.
It is not a matter of 'us' vs 'them' but rather an understanding of the limitations of the modern world. It's no use being overly idealistic about how things *should be* - in the real world things work the way they work and the crux of the matter is, I do not want to live in a world that is controlled by islam or any other fascist regime. For this reason on some level I have to accept that there is an inherent tension between my anti-war sentiments and my desire to remain a citizen of a free and democratic society. If that makes me a hypocrite then so be it. Hypocrisy is pretty well woven into every strata of modern life.
As far as respect for the serving western forces as opposed to suicide bombers and their ilk, I think this is an unfair comparison. Suicide bombers are not serving their country, they are serving their God. But you are right, I should have said that I understand the necessity of protecting my and my childrens' freedoms in the context of a global existence, and I respect those who fight for my continued right to live my life in the way that I choose.
Your article was not particularly clever or incisive, IMO, but those are, of course, subjective distinctions, so I will gladly allow you your own view. I thought it was ballsy simply because you chose to post it on a day where unbridled sentiment and, yes, totally overblown patriotism-cum-blind fervor, has become virtually sacrosanct.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From vix
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 05:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Heheheh, yeah I know it was random. I just thought I remembered you telling me (a few years ago, by now) that you worked on fishing crews, but I do tend to get mixed up about people's identities given that I speak to so many people here. I decided to ask since I thought the programmes were really interesting, and on the off chance that you might be able to tell me more about what it's like. Obviously that won't be the case :)
(reply to this comment) |
| | From ErikMagnusLehnsher
Friday, September 14, 2007, 22:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
LOL. Based on your "mercenary" definition, the fat security guard who works at Citibank is a mercenary (he's are hired gun, right?) Every definition I've ever seen of a mercenary is someone in the paid service of a foreign army or government who basically makes their services available to the highest bidder. If China is paying the most then that's who they'll work for.
"The Iraqi rebels on the other hand fight for their beliefs and way of life, not for monetary rewards"
The vast majority of the geniuses that planned the war (to call it "planning" is charitable on my part) now acknowledge that one of the biggest post-invasion mistakes was disbanding the Iraqi army. This resulted in all the career Iraqi soldiers losing their jobs, pensions and livelihoods...of course by your definition they were never soldiers anyway...just smarmy,greedy mercenaries, right?
Many of the unemployed former Iraqi soldiers found new jobs as well paid insurgents with cash paid for each U.S. soldier they killed. They were paid by either Saddam loyalists or by financial backers who brought in money from neighboring countries. So, Fish, was it as this point that they were magically transformed from mercenaries to altruistic "Iraqi rebels that fight for their beliefs and way of life"? If anything, their new status would be more in line with the commonly accepted description of a mercenary...especially if they were being financed by money of Saudi or Iranian origin. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 00:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
This comment plainly reveals the nauseating patriotism I suspected you of. I never referred to the term "mercenary" in a derogatory sense, yet you seem hell bent on implying that I did.
"smarmy,greedy mercenaries..." WTF?
I quite clearly stated in what sense I was using the word, yet you plow on in blind idiocy.
Your point about the disbanded Iraqi army has merit, but you overstate the financial aspect. I doubt the majority of suicide bombers are in it for the money.
You imply that I think the Iraqi insurgents "altruistic". Where did I say any such thing? You are an idiot, and no matter what answer you are given you will stick to your preconceived moronic ideals, so I may as well cut to the chase and tell you to go watch CNN or whatever channel it is that feeds you such brilliant ideas.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From ErikMagnusLehnsher
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 06:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
We're not going get anywhere with this. You're welcome to use whatever words you want to use and call people what you want to. My point is that regardless of YOUR interpretation, most people will interpret it based on the commonly understood meaning and connotations. It's like in Clerk 2 where Randel tries to take back the term "Porch Monkey" back and claim that it had no racial connotation because that's not what HE meant when HE used it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpGdxQ0o3l4
A mercenary does not subject himself to the incredible dangers that a soldier in Iraq faces while making the pay that most soldiers earn and making the sacrifices that they make. Whether you agree or disagree with the politics and wisdom of the Iraq war (I happen to have always disagreed), to refer to soldiers as merc's is an insult.
Well...This idiot had better get back to watching CNN. :)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Tinaph80
Friday, September 14, 2007 - 05:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It's unrealistic and kind of cowardly because it means you don't have to try.
Peggy Noonan
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from conan
Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 00:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let me start by saying I kind of, almost sort of agree with you, but can’t. Bear with me if you will. These are my opinions and ramblings and don’t really care if you agree or not. Am not going to get involved in a debate, but felt like making a comment on this topic in response. Yes, NYC is my home, and yes, I was here when the towers fell.
The attacks carried out against the United States of America (will refer to as US or USA), and their global allies on September 11, 2001 were hideous and despicable acts of terror, and mass murder without direct provocation(*) and, as such, are inexcusable. As an American, I was nervous, sad, scared, pissed, angry, desolate, inconsolable, infuriated, galled, irate, etc., and felt that the US had every right to demand justice on those behind these attacks. The sovereign nation of Afghanistan refused to turn over the confessed perpetrators, masterminds, and financers of the worst attack carried out against US citizens, government buildings and institutions within Her borders, as well as the symbol of the ‘Free World’ in the Twin Towers, and offered protection for them and as such were provoking the American government into hostile engagements. The USA was more than justified in going into Afghanistan, and treating their Taliban government as an enemy to our American freedom, as well as a legitimate threat to American soldiers and civilians living or serving anywhere overseas. There had been attacks on US consulates perpetrated by Al-Qaeda in Africa, Asia and Europe as well as the U.S.S. Cole, all of which were unprovoked(*).
That being said, the US governments sickening use of 9/11 as a rallying cry for their unjustifiable invasion of yet another nation was, is, and will continue to be reprehensible. Over 3,000 families remember September 11 as the day their loved ones were killed for no reason of their own as individuals, but because of where they happened to be that morning to further the political/religious aspirations of lunatics and perverts half a world away (yes, I believe polygamy to be immoral, degrading, and a perverted, chauvinistic belief that should be eliminated internationally). The continuation of our occupation of Iraq is inexcusable, and the claims that the ‘same people’ who attacked us on 9/11 are the same ones who are killing US soldiers daily in Iraq today are deliberately fabricated and incorrectly portrayed in the media as this entire ‘war’ in Iraq was botched from day 5 or so on to the point that it is so FUBAR we don’t know how to get out and the idiot Bush keeps trying to rally support for its elongation by invoking ‘9/11’ as the neat and tidy reason for everything going so horribly wrong over there.
I think it’s important that our nation commemorates September 11 annually, but don’t believe that that commemoration should be one that involves the idiot Bush giving some speech about how we’re ridding the world of terrorism in Iraq and fighting for freedom worldwide while Osama bin Laden remains at large and the quagmire that is the ‘surge’ continues to be treated more and more like a political distraction instead of the life and death of thousands of Americans as well as many more civilian casualties daily. It was a tragic event that deserves our nations attention and unity, regardless of how distorted the subsequent policy it’s directly responsible for is.
In today’s media world, however, with the 24-hour news networks grasping for something to stretch out the doldrums between Britney’s botched comeback and Anna Nicole’s bastard kid, the genuine tragedy of 9/11 is turned into a commercial for irresponsible, misplaced patriotism. I discussed this and other similar issues when discussing the ‘Virginia Tech Massacre’ that remained in the news far too long and received for too much significance and attention. The fact that our nation’s path to virtual universal hatred and ridicule worldwide in only 6 short years is a testament to the complete and utter incompetence of the current administration coupled with the complete lack of a legitimate plan to withdraw our troops with a viable, local, democratic government in power with a functioning economy etc. is almost too far-fetched and absurd to be true. Unfortunately, lost in the anti-war rhetoric and the cries to bring the troops home is the fact that we’ve fucked up an entire nation and it’s infrastructure so totally that it would be inconceivably cruel to pick up and leave, letting them try and sort their country and government out into a successful, functioning nation after we’d been so instrumental in creating a state of anarchy among them whilst expecting to be favorably welcomed unilaterally.
“Any song, poem or movie that contains the phrase “9/11” will be censored. “
Why? Tragedy contributes greatly to art and I’ve seen some fantastic short films, plays, TV specials and movies based on 9/11.
“Anyone claiming “I speak to god daily” or “god tells me what to do” will be permanently bared from the presidency.”
Agree with you 100%
“Anyone who implies that it’s somehow inherently wrong to show disrespect for the sacred items of an opposing religious culture will have their head beaten in by a metal bound Koran.”
That’s just ignorant. I’m not one to preach religion but to deliberately disrespect the Koran or any other religious book in front of those who believe the contents of which to be sacred and holy is just stupid. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be fun, but you’d be asking for a reaction that wouldn’t be mellow, that’s for damn sure!
“Any Christian who voted for the war in Iraq will be given a suit of mail, a helmet, a sword, and a white tunic with a red cross on it and shipped there. (by Venetian sailing vessel, so as to save on oil.) They must provide their own horse.”
Not a bad idea, in regards to Iraq, but not sure why it should be exclusively Christians.
“Anyone moaning and/or groaning about peace in the Middle East will be given a camel in exchange for the oil guzzling car they drove to the peace rally.”
Well, I think if enough people moaned and groaned about peace in the Middle East, something might actually be done to achieve it. Oil in reference to global warming, I won’t touch here.
“Anyone who produces anything which portrays Islam as a peaceful religion will be wrapped in an American flag and dropped into the center of Mecca.”
That’s just dumb. Mecca, as the holiest city to the Islamic faith and Muslim People is closed off to infidels and being dropped in, as a foreigner from any nation draped in their flag, would be unwelcome there. The fundamentals of Islam are not about aggression and violence but is very similar to Christianity in its ‘guidelines’ and is all about submission. However, the way it is forced on others to believe is a classic case of irony.
“Anyone, be they American or foreigner, who utters the accursed phrase “America, fuck yeah” will be shot on site.”
Again, why? ‘America, Fuck Yeah!’ is a hilarious tagline to a clever, satirical movie and its use is mostly entertaining as well as just genuinely funny. I’ve employed it in moments of sarcasm too many times to count, and then there are the times I say it just for fun! It’s America for a reason dude. Fuck yeah! You can say whatever you like!
“Lastly, anyone comparing any event to 9/11, such as “It was Spain’s 9/11” or “Could this be Russia’s 9/11?”, will have their tongue removed. (Was Pearl Harbor America’s 9/11?)”
This one I agree with you on, but maybe not quite to the extent you do. I believe that 9/11 has it’s infamy always and doesn’t need to be associated with any other tragedies, be they terrorist attack or otherwise. However, using 9/11 as a benchmark is something that will for better or worse be the yardstick for American disasters for a very long time, I’m sure, much like Katrina will always be America’s yardstick for hurricane related damage and the Tsunami of South East Asia for similar scenarios for years to come.
(*)I’m not going to get on the topic of global politics and the ‘legitimate’ grievances that Al-Qaeda believes they have against the US government and the errors in US international policy that may have provoked such an attack. While there are obviously countless incidents over the last 50 years or so to brew hatred and animosity throughout the Islamic world and specifically the Middle East, there was no direct attack that was targeted as the trigger for the 9/11/01 attacks on US soil. It was just one attack in a series of many successful (and unsuccessful) attempts to hamper and eventually destroy the US as a nation free to worship a god other than Allah, and whose date had religious significance going back centuries longer than the US’s fucked up international policy is old.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Fish
Friday, September 14, 2007, 06:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
While I’m flattered that you took the time to compose such a lengthy response, there is really no way I will ever be able to answer your grievances. Our perspectives are too divergent, and you are far too American. You take things far too literally for any real communication to be possible. The above nonsense was composed in the spirit of satire, with less care being put to the literal application, and more to the spirit of the matter. Truth be told, I have no stance per say, and am simply aggravated by stupidity. Nonetheless, many of my points, even if taken literally, make a good deal of sense.
I haven’t the time to explain my twisted ideas one by one, but take for example my point:
“Anyone who produces anything which portrays Islam as a peaceful religion will be wrapped in an American flag and dropped into the center of Mecca.”
You argued that as this would be a gross provocation to Muslims in general it was hardly fair. While that may be the case, I am judging Islamic culture not by their own taboos, but by accepted international ones. To drop a fanatical Muslim draped in a Saudi flag into the center of the Vatican would defiantly be in bad taste, however, I think it unlikely that the Swiss guards would decapitate or otherwise abuse the unfortunate, as would almost certainly be the case if a westerner was dropped in Mecca.
What I was criticizing in this and the comment about mocking sacred objects was the idiotic way in which some liberals try to white wash the image of Islam. Islam is not a tolerant or peaceful religion, period. While many Muslims are doubtless kind and admirable people this does not change anything. Rommel was an admirable person, as was Heidegger, but this does not make Nazism any more palatable.
In my view, the west needs no moral excuse to subjugate those who offend them. If they have the ability and it is expedient, then by all means they should do so, and do so without the pusillanimous moral outcry for a “righteous war”. It is natural law that the strong should rule the weak, and if the weak Islamic culture goes out of its way to agitate the west, I believe it ought to face the natural consequences.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Saturday, September 15, 2007, 22:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Some of your ideas seem to be the very ones that perpetrate cycles of violence. This "strong dominate the weak" stuff. Well the strong aren't strong forever, and the weak often get stronger. When we sacrifice the moral high ground for short term strategic advantage it often turns into a buried land mine causing much greater damage later. A prime example is our support for Osama Bin Laden as a CIA agent fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. We trained these people and distributed school books encouraging and promoting the concept of holy war (Jihad) when this term had not been in common use by Muslims for centuries. Now we are in an alliance with the Sunnis in the Anbar region because they agreed to turn on Al Qaida. They are still devoted to destroying any central Iraqi government however. How this will turn out is anyones guess although mine is that the result will not be good.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Sunday, September 16, 2007, 03:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
What you are referring to (a generally short sighted foreign policy) is, in my opinion, perhaps the greatest flaw in 20th and 21st century American international relations. I haven't figured out why it is so, but it seems that the US government is perpetually finding quick fix solutions in its efforts to defeat an immediate threat without considering the long term ramifications.
This promoting of Jihad is only the latest installment in a long tradition of this kind of behaviour. If you look at WW1, and even more so at WW2, American policy has been remarkable short sighted, opposed to say British policy. Its only natural the trend of foot shooting should continue, and I doubt not that it will do so for some time to come. (reply to this comment) |
| | From thatata
Thursday, September 13, 2007, 11:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dammit, conan, your'e so serious.
Good points though, I mean good points from your side! You're an American no Anarchist, actually I was chatting with someone in the chatroom, and he tells me his thoughts "Im anti-fascist and anti- globalism", and, he says ," You know the kind of Anarchism that works", and I say"Yeah what?"- " Anarcho- syndicalism". Wow! Cept I don't know exactly what that means!
I hope Im not misrepresenting the person who said these things, hope Im not. Anyways, anyways, what?
I like Max Stirner's The Ego and His Own, now thats some anarchism I can understand!
(reply to this comment) |
| | from out now
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 06:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
new film 'Taking Liberties' Excellent, a must see.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | from shikaka
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 12:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ha, well written. I enjoyed it. I'm going to leave out my personal beliefs, as this is a fairly volatile issue, and its early.
(reply to this comment)
| from Lithium
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 11:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have been entertained! That was worth a laugh, bad spelling and all!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from cheeks
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 11:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have always been against the war in Iraq. I never supported it, never saw the need to go over there. I do however support our troops. I support the brave men and women who put themselves in harms way everyday to help a country that is at war with themselves.
I guess you had to be here for 9/11, and then again you should be able to empathize for the children who lost parents, the mothers and fathers who lost sons and daughters, the grandparents who lost grandchildren and so on with out having been here. The brave fire-fighters and police who went in the buildings knowing they could come down and called their wives and families at home to say good-bye for the last time. These are the people I salute on this day, these are the people we should be remembering and I am sorry that you are not able to see it from that angle. I am sorry that you are so shriveled up on the inside that you cannot look at the families that are still here and have some shred of compassion for them and their grief.
(reply to this comment)
| from Oddman
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 10:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
I thoroughly enjoyed reading that.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Nick
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 10:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your an idiot! I would try and argue with you, but it would be like trying to convert Bin Laden to Christianity. A losing battle...
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | from thatata
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 09:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Crusty and controversial I like this !
(reply to this comment)
| from Samuel
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 08:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Consider this my response to your article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxK-PdpHnuU
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from vix
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 07:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Heheheh, I liked it.
(reply to this comment)
| From Phoenixkidd
Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 10:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Fish I actually liked this piece a lot. Because
A: You expressed your the irony you feel in being called American but living abroad.
B: You weren't afraid to criticize something that the general American populace and media think is so grave, and awful, the bombing of the towers.
I remember after the 9/11 attacks I went out to a pub, and I mentioned to a fairly wealthy entrepeneur that I really didn't give a shit about what happened. I tried to argue that it really doesn't affect my life at all nor should it. To which he was completely shocked almost outraged and left the conversation I was having with my then girlfriend.
My logic is, we are such a large country, it really doesn't affect everyone--it happened 3000 miles away. Within 12 hours banks, businesses etc, based or that had operations in the WTC had their back up banks in Florida and elsewhere, fielding and handling operations.
It's only in our modern day and age and especially in America that we think that everything that happens to one of our 500 million Americans should immediately be given media attention and made into a political issue.
I also feel, and no doubt tainted by my cult background, that America almost deserves a taste of what it so freely doles out to the rest of the world--Destruction of property and lives...
There I said it!!
I will nonetheless buy roses and burn incense today. In memory of the innocent.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]