Article

2004-10-13 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by someone 2004-10-13 12:02:20 PM|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 If I were the Ingush, I would be getting the hell outta Dodge.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-10-13 12:21:11 PM|| 2004-10-13 12:21:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I don't agree with it, but really can't say I blame the Ossetians either...

Gonna get messy over there.

Posted by mmurray821 2004-10-13 12:26:15 PM|| 2004-10-13 12:26:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 For what those animals did to those children, I"m not gonna pass judgement on the Ossetians. Yer right murra, gonna be real messy.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-10-13 12:33:38 PM|| 2004-10-13 12:33:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 No doubt the MSM will fully document the 'horrors' of the 'senseless' killings of the Islamists just as much as they all-but-ignored the rape and murder of the innocent children and hostages.

All to advance the goals of their (the MSM's) terrorists allies.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-10-13 12:39:36 PM|| 2004-10-13 12:39:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 CrazyFool - you're right. I can just see the comments now, "Who would've thought that this revenge, in the 21st Century, can happen to innocent people..... They should just talk it over....." Blah, blah, blah. I don't want to see it happen, either, but I certainly can't blame the Ossetians.

Posted by nada 2004-10-13 12:59:01 PM|| 2004-10-13 12:59:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 MSM, clueless purveyors of flatulance, have forgotten what it was really like to live in the real world!

Seperated at birth...

Posted by BigEd 2004-10-13 1:00:45 PM|| 2004-10-13 1:00:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Do people here know the difference between "i can understand X" and "i cant blame X". IF (and it aint happened yet" people massacre innocent ingushetians, i most certainly can and will blame whoever does the massacres, just as I blamed the childmurderers.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-13 1:04:50 PM|| 2004-10-13 1:04:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 big ed...great graphic.

The Ossetians are Christians, so I hope they look to their faith, instead of towards revenge. If they do kill, I hope they only kill those who have blood on their hands and avoid the innocent. Nothing is gained by senseless killing.

Posted by Ulutle Jeger6612 2004-10-13 1:07:53 PM|| 2004-10-13 1:07:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Liberal Hawk...for once I completely agree with you.

Posted by Phaviper Craviter2763 2004-10-13 1:09:01 PM|| 2004-10-13 1:09:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 LH, that's all well and good if you believe that Islamic terrorism is the work of a few misguided souls. I don't. What we call terrorism is simply the most aggressive branch of a larger campaign of "religious" totalitarian expansionism. The enemy isn't bin Laden; the enemy is Islam. Any person serving as a host for this ideology is fair game. Period.

Happy hunting, Ossetians.

Posted by BH 2004-10-13 1:18:34 PM|| 2004-10-13 1:18:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 "The Chicago way"

Posted by mojo 2004-10-13 1:21:10 PM|| 2004-10-13 1:21:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I didn't see anything. I was tying my shoe.

What, you say I'm wearing loafers?

No wonder it took so long! Guess that's why I saw nuh-zingk.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-10-13 1:58:51 PM|| 2004-10-13 1:58:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 If they want to help, infultrate the Chechens networks. Then they can help stop those idiots there, and get info for us on Al qeda. I'm sure we'd pay for the info, as would the Russians.

Posted by plainslow 2004-10-13 3:37:55 PM|| 2004-10-13 3:37:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 LH, that's all well and good if you believe that Islamic terrorism is the work of a few misguided souls. I don't. What we call terrorism is simply the most aggressive branch of a larger campaign of "religious" totalitarian expansionism. The enemy isn't bin Laden; the enemy is Islam. Any person serving as a host for this ideology is fair game. Period. Happy hunting, Ossetians.

Good job, you've practically quoted Hamas rhetoric word for word, except they use "Zionism" where you've used "Islam".

You've pretty much justified 9/11, Beslan and every other act of terrorism, mass murder or even genocide that has ever happened on the face of the earth. Those Ossetian children must have after all been "hosts" of the meme of Russian imperialism, right?

Liberalhawk> "Do people here know the difference between "i can understand X" and "i cant blame X"." Most people here don't. Apologia and indifference about crimes against *innocent* Muslims has been the status quo for a very large partion of Rantburg's participants. You are one of the few exceptions, and I am sure you recognize your ideas are usually at the fringe of Rantburg mainstream (though not as much to the fringe as mine).

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-13 3:49:39 PM|| 2004-10-13 3:49:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Aris, you are truly an enlightened soul.

May God bless you and hold you in da palm of he little hand and not squish you like a grape.

Posted by lex 2004-10-13 4:00:54 PM|| 2004-10-13 4:00:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Most people here don't.

Speaking for yourself, of course.

And didn't you promise never to come back to Rantburg?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-10-13 4:03:06 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-10-13 4:03:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Aris, is your claim that Islam is a benevolent ideology?

I've read the Koran (because of 9/11) and I can't say I find it benevolent -- whether it be towards women, Jews, non-believers, and apostates. On the contrary, I find Islam as preached by the Koran to be an oppressive, bloodthirsty ideology similar to Nazism and Communism in terms of consequences: hatred of liberty, slavery for most, and violent death as a natural method.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-10-13 4:08:28 PM|| [http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/] 2004-10-13 4:08:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Good job, you've practically quoted Hamas rhetoric word for word, except they use "Zionism" where you've used "Islam".

Yep. Makes much more sense that way.

You've pretty much justified 9/11, Beslan and every other act of terrorism, mass murder or even genocide that has ever happened on the face of the earth. Those Ossetian children must have after all been "hosts" of the meme of Russian imperialism, right?

This is the part, I presume, where I'm supposed to say, "Gawrsh! I sound just like them! I must be a monster or a hypocrite, or maybe both!"

It must be nice to live with such a simplistic viewpoint, where everybody is equally right and every conflict can be turned into an infinite series of "whatabouts". But you know what? Derrida is f*cking dead. Said is f*cking dead. Your stoner logic is worthless.

Posted by BH 2004-10-13 4:32:26 PM|| 2004-10-13 4:32:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Kalle> "Aris, is your claim that Islam is a benevolent ideology?"

I don't think that it's an "ideology" at all. It's a religion from which several different ideologies have sprung, as different to each other as modern-day Catholicism is from the Catholicism of the Spanish Inquisition.

The prevailing ideology of Islam in the Middle-east is reactionary and repressive, yes. But do you think that everyone calling themselves Muslims share in that ideology? And even more so do you think that they share in the particular fringe ideology that would justify the death of children in Beslan?

Communism and even more so Nazism, didn't have one and a half millenium to splinter off into different interpretations. It's very easy to say what a Nazi believed -- the Nazi party lasted in a particular point of time. It's only slightly harder to say what a Communist believes-they've had what a century and a half? to splinter off into directions. For a Muslim (even one who actively believes not simply someone who was raised in the tradition), if you limit it further than "They believe in one God, and that a person called Mohammed was his prophet" you are bound to have overgeneralized.

Robert Crawford> No, Robert, I didn't "promise" it, I had simply mentioned it as a statement of intent -- I'm reasonably sure that I never made any promises about it. And then I changed my mind, which I believe I was still free to do.

lex> Thank you. But I wouldn't call myself "enlightened" as much as simply someone who still believes there's a difference between the light and the dark.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-13 4:38:15 PM|| 2004-10-13 4:38:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 LOL Lex!

Posted by Shipman 2004-10-13 4:43:19 PM|| 2004-10-13 4:43:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 BH>
"the part, I presume, where I'm supposed to say, "Gawrsh! I sound just like them! I must be a monster or a hypocrite, or maybe both"

No, dearie, that's the part where you are supposed to mock me for supposed moral equivalency because I treat all murders of innocents as being murders of innocents, instead of first inquiring about the race, ethnicity or religious faith of said innocent.

You've unfortunately acted the part I expected of you.

"It must be nice to live with such a simplistic viewpoint, where everybody is equally right"

Oh, no, my viewpoint is that I am MUCH more right than *you*. And my viewpoint is that people who don't commit or advocate genocidal warfare or mass murders tend to be MUCH better than the people who so commit or advocate it.

I'm a moral absolutist you see -- unlike your brand of apologia.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-13 4:43:59 PM|| 2004-10-13 4:43:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 BH>
"the part, I presume, where I'm supposed to say, "Gawrsh! I sound just like them! I must be a monster or a hypocrite, or maybe both"

No, dearie, that's the part where you are supposed to mock me for supposed moral equivalency because I treat all murders of innocents as being murders of innocents, instead of first inquiring about the race, ethnicity or religious faith of said innocent.

You've unfortunately acted the part I expected of you.

"It must be nice to live with such a simplistic viewpoint, where everybody is equally right"

Oh, no, my viewpoint is that I am MUCH more right than *you*. And my viewpoint is that people who don't commit or advocate genocidal warfare or mass murders tend to be MUCH better than the people who so commit or advocate it.

I'm a moral absolutist you see -- unlike your brand of apologia.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-13 4:44:00 PM|| 2004-10-13 4:44:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 But I wouldn't call myself "enlightened" as much as simply someone who still believes there's a difference between the light and the dark.

It's a matter of nuance and missing capacitors usually. But in this climate it all looks EuroGray.

Posted by John Lucas 2004-10-13 4:45:43 PM|| 2004-10-13 4:45:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Aris,

Please answer my very specific question: do you claim that the body of injunctions called Islam is benevolent? (doesn't matter whether you want to call it religion or ideology, I only care about the message)

In particular, is Islam benevolent towards women, Jews, non-believers (such as Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists), and apostates? is Islam pro-individual freedom as guaranteed by the republican form of government limited by a bill of rights?

You're invited to cite the Koran to establish the benevolence of Islam in those particulars. Thanks.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-10-13 4:57:38 PM|| [http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/] 2004-10-13 4:57:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 No, dearie, that's the part where you are supposed to mock me for supposed moral equivalency because I treat all murders of innocents as being murders of innocents, instead of first inquiring about the race, ethnicity or religious faith of said innocent.

Well that's just silly, since "religious faith" is clearly a factor in this. We didn't go about WWII saying, "Look! There's a Nazi!" "Well, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a psychopathic, Jew-killing socialist. Let's wait and see what he does."

You've unfortunately acted the part I expected of you.

Ouch! The bitter sting of moral righteousness! Make it stop! Make it stop!

Oh, no, my viewpoint is that I am MUCH more right than *you*.

Yes, but your viewpoint is sh*t. I thought I mentioned that.

And my viewpoint is that people who don't commit or advocate genocidal warfare or mass murders tend to be MUCH better than the people who so commit or advocate it.

And my viewpoint is that any ideology that professes the elimination of me and mine is an ideology that must itself be eliminated.

Posted by BH 2004-10-13 5:04:05 PM|| 2004-10-13 5:04:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Yes Aris, we are all the Good Lord's little children and I believe the children are our future and the future is bright only if this little light o' mine gonna shine let it shine blah blah blah.

I'm a liberal, I don't believe in God or the devil, and don't particularly care for anyone's religious war, but I come to Rantburg primarily for the same reason my fellow anti-jihadists do: because it's fun. It's a community of like-minded folks who care passionately about winning this war. If you want koombayah, then go to your local church.

And not just fun but absolutely necessary. This is war. As in every war, if you're to keep up your fighting spirit, the enemy needs to be objectified to some degree. Hence "redcoats" and "lobster-backs" in the Revolutionary War, "yankees" for southerners during the Civil War, "huns" in WWI and "jerries" and "krauts" in WWII for you-know-who, "gooks" in Vietnam etc etc etc. Soldiers do it to let off steam.

And after reading about and watching scenes of children being tortured, raped, forced to drink their piss, blown up, shot in the back, tossed into mass graves etc etc etc, soldiers, ex-soldiers and non-soldiers alike feel a similar need to let off some steam. Better through some harmless online chatter than with the rather formidable home arsenals I gather many Rantburgers (starting with Old Spook and his mahdi pistol) possess.

Posted by lex 2004-10-13 5:06:43 PM|| 2004-10-13 5:06:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 I meant, southerners used "yankee" to objectify the Union forces. See, you come here and learn plenty about US history, society, culture and folkways; we come here to pick up something about PakistanSudanAfghanistanIraqIranIroll.

Now chill.

Posted by lex 2004-10-13 5:09:41 PM|| 2004-10-13 5:09:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 I don't condone what they are about to do but I surely understand the revenge angle. The Ingush have chosen sides and I don't remember them giving up names or places where they can find the terrorists. It's kind of like the left in this country, they don't root openly for the terrorists, but they don't support measure to expose or dismantle their ability to operate. Kind of like they don't care either way how the WOT turns out. They would have been great slaves in ancient times.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2004-10-13 5:32:09 PM|| 2004-10-13 5:32:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Interesting in that after the Beslan atrocity, the Ingush KNEW they would be targeted, yet took little effort in distancing themselves from what happened, which they could have done given the large number of foreign jihadists involved. But, they didn't. Could it be that they actually agreed with what was perpetrated on the Ossetians? If they truly tried, I missed it.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-10-13 5:51:11 PM|| 2004-10-13 5:51:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Aris, Please answer my very specific question: do you claim that the body of injunctions called Islam is benevolent? (doesn't matter whether you want to call it religion or ideology, I only care about the message) In particular, is Islam benevolent towards women, Jews, non-believers (such as Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists), and apostates? is Islam pro-individual freedom as guaranteed by the republican form of government limited by a bill of rights? You're invited to cite the Koran to establish the benevolence of Islam in those particulars. Thanks.

If you are comparing the laws of Koran to the laws of modern-day democratic governments limited by a bill of rights, then *NO* Islam as a whole is not "benevolent" (or to put it in another way it is repressive and reactionary, words I've used already).

It might be "benevolent" compared to the Aztec religion though. Or the Catholic Inquisition, perhaps.

But my point was that you don't know which people calling themselves Muslims believe in which laws. Few Jews nowadays believe in stoning adulterers, even though that's part of the body of injuctions called "Judaism".

BJ> We didn't go about WWII saying, "Look! There's a Nazi!" "Well, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a psychopathic, Jew-killing socialist. Let's wait and see what he does.

Actually we didn't go about WWII caring about whether the Germans facing us were specific members of the Nazi party or followers of the Nazi ideology or mere innocent conscripts at all. When a person is on the enemy army about to fight you, you don't have the luxury to care about their ideology or their motivations.

And at the point that we *did* have the luxury of caring about the ideology of people (meaning after the end of the war), we decided that were many millions of Nazis that *wouldn't* be killed just because they had once been members of the Nazi party, that executions of Nazis would indeed have to do only with specific crimes, not for believing in an ideology.

Well that's just silly, since "religious faith" is clearly a factor in this.

So was "race" in the time of slavery. Would you have supported black people killing all white children just because they are white?

On my part I'd have supported only the deaths of the adult slaveholders, not all white people. Same way that I can now only support the death of the terrorists, not all Muslims.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-13 6:00:32 PM|| 2004-10-13 6:00:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Lex> Let them objectify the *enemy* as much as they want. But when they extend the word "enemy" to cover all muslims (BH didn't care to specify age either, so please feel free to see his words about legimate targets and happy hunting apply to little Muslim children also btw -- anyone else got a good visual imagery of BH killing little Muslim children with as much gusto as Serbs did in Bosnia?), that's when I'm gonna be raising my voice in dispute.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-13 6:10:54 PM|| 2004-10-13 6:10:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Thanks. Now that we agree Islam is NOT benevolent to e.g. women, Jews, non-believers, and apostates, the question on the table becomes: why should we tolerate Islam in any form? Nazism and Communism have been defeated, not tolerated.

My opinion is that Nazi Germany had to be defeated, just as Bushido Japan had to, and Soviet Russia had to. Now the Islamist "Umma" must be defeated. If what it takes is massive killing of the enemy, so be it. They have been deliberately attacking the West for 1400 years. The time has come to destroy them, as thoroughly as Carthage was destroyed.

If some Moslems are killed, they may start asking themselves why they hate non-Moslems. And they may ask themselves why their leaders keep preaching conquest and slavery, including the destruction of both Israel and the USA. Until they do this and explicitly renounce their creed, it is legitimate to consider them inimical and as dangerous as wild beasts -- and to use deadly force against them.

In other words, not only is islam NOT benevolent, it is virulent and deadly -- and consequently Islam must be eradicated.

They shout "Death to America" -- and we need to take their threats seriously.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-10-13 6:17:18 PM|| [http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/] 2004-10-13 6:17:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Aris,
I don't claim to be a moral absolutist. I believe do unto others as they do unto you. The muslim religion states that it the moral duty of each muslim to convert or kill the infidels and conquer the world for islam. In respnse, I say kill or convert to Chrisianity all the muslims. Submit or die, it's only fair. The muslims have attacked and destroyed the center of the US's major city, so I say blow up muslim cities and those in it. Chase them into the desert and hunt them down like they did to the millions of Christian and animist Sudanese. They have taken hostage, killed and raped men, women and children. Blow up muslim men, women and children where ever the are. Take their land and riches and use it against them. No mercy. No regrets.

You live in peace Aris, and I will live in peace. You do me evil, and I will do you the same to you. Only the amount will vastly differ. To do otherwise is watch my civilization slowly bleed to death, like so many before that the muslims have destroyed. Before that happens, I will send you and all those to wish that to hell.

Posted by ed 2004-10-13 6:20:00 PM|| 2004-10-13 6:20:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 anyone else got a good visual imagery of BH killing little Muslim children with as much gusto as Serbs did in Bosnia?

What, you want us to leave them all homeless orphans? Jeez, what a heartless bastard.

Posted by BH 2004-10-13 6:23:59 PM|| 2004-10-13 6:23:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 They have been deliberately attacking the West for 1400 years.

Most of those 1400 years, the so-called "West" has not been particularly "benevolent" either. Had Byzantium not heavily oppressed the Copts of Egypt, the Copts wouldn't have welcomed the invading Arabs as "benevolent" liberators.

why should we tolerate Islam in any form? Nazism and Communism have been defeated, not tolerated.

First of all Communism hasn't been defeated yet, more than a billion people live under its rule.

Secondly, mass-murdering communists just because they happen to be communists would be as bad as mass-murdering muslims just because they are muslims. It's called freedom of opinion and freedom of religion, without which my civilisation ISN'T worth defending -- without which my civilisation ISN'T my civilisation, given how I define what constitutes "the West" by the existence of these freedoms.

But by all means I agree with you with the need of the destruction of the Sharia *forms of governments* -- countries like Iran and Sudan and the Taliban Afghanistan.

The same way there'd be need to destroy any theocratic *Christian* tyranny that would have existed.

They have taken hostage, killed and raped men, women and children.

So have Christian Serbs in Bosnia against Muslims, and Russians in Chechnya. Would that, according to you, justify a Muslim taking hostage and killing Christian people, just because they are Christians?

You live in peace Aris, and I will live in peace. You do me evil, and I will do you the same to you.

The problems comes with you desiring to group all Muslims together, which is as wrong as grouping all Christians together when jihadis calculate the "punishment" that non-believers must receive.

The muslim religion states that it the moral duty of each muslim to convert or kill the infidels and conquer the world for islam.

And most Muslims believe in that as much as the Jews believe in stoning adulterers. The problem is there is a strong fringe element in Islam that does believe in it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-13 6:50:56 PM|| 2004-10-13 6:50:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 When I saw there were 35 comments to this story (and counting), I just knew Aris was involved.

I must be psychic. ;-p

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-10-13 7:06:43 PM|| 2004-10-13 7:06:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 As for Bosnians and Serbs raping and killing each other. I say fuck 'em. They have been fighting for the 700 years, with Serbs on the receiving end for most of the time. Either separate, or keep on killing each other until one side wins. It matters not to me. And as for Christian partisianship, I live in a Christian country and much of my values comes from those societal norms, but don't assume I am one. How Euro centric of you. Next you will assume I am white.

When muslims target mark all Christians, non-muslims, kaffirs for death or conversion, I have no qualms at all about marking all muslims for the same. It is other muslims who encourage, preach in the mosques, supply the recruits, finance and shelter those who are doing murdering, raping, and destruction. If the muslims do not support it, then they can take care it themselves, or point them out and we will kill them. It is not you or I that can separate the fringe groups from islam. But instead, you find them dancing in the streets and eagerly awaiting the next atrocity porn. They call it jihad. I call it a brutal war targeting civilians and I ask the same be done to them.

And Aris, muslims are the only people still stoning adulterers, at least the female ones anyway.

Posted by ed 2004-10-13 7:22:00 PM|| 2004-10-13 7:22:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 ed> "And as for Christian partisianship, I live in a Christian country and much of my values comes from those societal norms, but don't assume I am one. How Euro centric of you.

Um.
1) When did I assume you were a Christian? I am rereading my comments and I can't find any such assumption. I'll be awaiting a response on this.
2) If you're not a Christian why did you favour specifically converting all Muslims to Christianity? I've heard very few people demand conversions on some *other* religion than their own.

When muslims target mark all Christians, non-muslims, kaffirs for death or conversion, I have no qualms at all about marking all muslims for the same. It is other muslims who encourage, preach in the mosques, supply the recruits, finance and shelter those who are doing murdering, raping, and destruction.

Yeah, like it was other Christians that encouraged the murders that the Bosnian Serbs did.

*Some* of Group A targetted *all* of Group B, therefore you feel it makes it okay for people of Group B to target *all* of Group A. Once again the same question: would the murder of all white people have been justified in slave-era America?

And Aris, muslims are the only people still stoning adulterers, at least the female ones anyway.

So, at which point in human history do you think that Judaism or Christianity should have been wiped out same as you are advocating to be done on Islam now? How about the time when Islam allowed the existence of Christians within its borders while Christian nations did not? At the time when Islam was more tolerant than Christianity, would you have supported the extinction of *Christianity*?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-13 7:41:42 PM|| 2004-10-13 7:41:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 More to the point, Aris, would the murder of *SOME* of the white people in slave-era America have been justified? Would it matter that they were slave-holders, or not, as long as they "benefitted" from slavery by way of being part of the slave-owning class?

Or are you saying that the murder of *NONE* of the white people would be justified?

I'll post more after I get drunk tonight. :)

Posted by Asedwich 2004-10-13 8:15:44 PM|| 2004-10-13 8:15:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 There is some good reading at www.prophetofdoom.net basically making the case that Muslims per se are not generally a danger, since most seem to very little of Islam. No need to kill them all to solve our problems. Islam as defined by the words and work of Allan and Moho is pretty nasty business, at least in this presentation, and his basic theme is that the more of Islam you believe, the more like terrorists you become. It is not as good as say Bertand Russell's stuff on Christianity, but an interesting read nevertheless. Click on "Prophet of Doom" in the Books section, the whole book is online for free.

Posted by Beau 2004-10-13 8:51:23 PM|| 2004-10-13 8:51:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Asedwich> I've already justified the death of the slaveholders themselves, but both "benefitted from slavery" and "slave-owning class" feel too vague wordings for me -- both feel as nothing but an excuse for mass racial killings. Perhaps a bit similar to the usage of "bourgoisie" by the communists. If you mean the specific people who engaged in slavetrade or oversaw slaves, then yeah, I'd definitely justify it. More widely than that (e.g. the teacher who taught the slaveholders children, or the grocer who sold him vegetables) and that'd be a definite no, IMO.

At the point where you are targetting people not because they participated in the wrong, but because they felt indifferent to your plight... well that's a very good line not to come even near crossing. We'd all end up guilty in such judgements.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-13 9:02:04 PM|| 2004-10-13 9:02:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 In a muslim society, I would be marked for death. This is now, not the past, and hopefully not the future. That is the crux of the matter. So yea, convert the muslims to Christianity. I live in a Christian (some say Judeo-Christian, some say secular) society, not discriminated against, and do well. Islam says to the faithful to convert or kill the infidel, or if an adherent to the bible, to live as a dhimmi under severe discrimination and eventual extinction. All is permitted to that end. I could also live in a Buddhist or Shinto country and prosper, but I don't see these societies actively in the fight. Why should they get the converts if they don't do the work?

And Aris, what would you do when Greeks are bombed, beheaded and enslaved? Do you believe it is better to surrender and be a slave or convert, as many in the Balkans did? Do you think you would handle it as a police matter when the muslims destroy your cites and massacre your people? This is a definite possibility for Greece and Europe in your lifetime, so please give an honest answer. Do your mother and sister feel the same way?

So have Christian Serbs in Bosnia against Muslims, and Russians in Chechnya. Would that, according to you, justify a Muslim taking hostage and killing Christian people, just because they are Christians?
That's exactly what the muslims are already doing today. Do the same to them. Otherwise die a slow extinction. Many in Europe may welcome extinction, but I do not. Let those who by doctrine want to kill me, die instead. And have the muslims been attacking the Christian (and Jewish, and Buddhist, and Hindu) world for the past 1400 years or not?

Secondly, mass-murdering communists just because they happen to be communists would be as bad as mass-murdering muslims just because they are muslims.
But the US was willing to mass-murder 200 million communists just to keep them from invading western Europe. But I can see it was all a mistake now. All that money and all those millions of man-years wasted when Americans could have built bigger homes and fancier swimming pools. Let Americans never again be deluded in such and adventure in western Europe.

So, at which point in human history do you think that Judaism or Christianity should have been wiped out same as you are advocating to be done on Islam now?
Judaism and Christianity are for all practical purposes wiped out in the muslim world. Before Islam, most of the Middle East and North Africa was Christian or Jewish, including much of Arabia. But through invasion, periodic massacres and dhimmitude discrimination (e.g. the first Dhimmi farmers had 1/2 of their goods confiscated, so his family starved), there are almost no nonmuslims left. The few left live in areas where European colonialism held sway for 200 years.

Muslims were never a factor in Christian lands. Shall we bring out competing statistics on the numbers of Christians and Jews killed by Muslims in their conquests and the number of Muslims killed by Christians in the re-conquest of Spain or Jerusalem? If you want parity in dead bodies, then I think Christiandom has a big score to settle. Would you care to comment on the 60 million Hindus and Buddhists that I read were killed in the Moslem conquest of Central Asia. FYI, 60M was 20% of the world population. Do the Hindus now owe Islam 1.5 billion dead bodies? Or shall we forgive and forget and concentrate on the mayhem Islam is causing today?

Christianity came close to being wiped out in Europe, thanks in much to the stupidity of the Byzantines and the Greek Orthodox church. All the Poles had to do was stay home and the whole of northern and central Europe would have opened up for conquest.

Yeah, like it was other Christians that encouraged the murders that the Bosnian Serbs did.
What are you talking about? It is muslims who are participating, funding, and sheltering muslims in jihad against the west. It is muslims who take perverse pleasure in seeing falling towers, beheaded infidels, bombed jews, and dead Russian school children.

*Some* of Group A targetted *all* of Group B, therefore you feel it makes it okay for people of Group B to target *all* of Group A. Once again the same question: would the murder of all white people have been justified in slave-era America?
That's the definition of war. *Some* Japanese targeted American in 1941. Americans targeted *all* Japanese until absolute surrender, 2M Japanese were dead, and Japanese emperor worship and Bushido were destroyed. Sometimes the enemy doesn't even have to attack Americans, just a declaration that they will is enough. Witness Germany.

It was mostly white people fighting each other in the civil war and doing the killing. The southern salves did not revolt, though when the Union army tokk over parts of the South, a lot ran away and joined the army. In Haiti, where the slaves did revolt, the French men, women and children were killed. I have no problem with that.

So I have responded to many of your questions, why don't you do the same, and respond to the questions asked of you on this thread.

Posted by ed 2004-10-13 9:06:29 PM|| 2004-10-13 9:06:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Do you think you would handle it as a police matter when the muslims destroy your cites and massacre your people?

I'm already handling it as a WAR matter. And I quite understand that when you are bombing enemy cities in a war, occasionally your bombs go astray and innocents are killed.

Which is something quite different to intentionally digging through cellars, dragging out hiding innocent 12-year old Muslim boys and girls, and shooting their brains out if they refuse to convert to Christianity, which you and BH still seem to me to be advocating.

"If you want parity in dead bodies, then I think Christiandom has a big score to settle. "

No, I don't want parity in dead bodies. That's just sick of you.

"Before Islam, most of the Middle East and North Africa was Christian or Jewish, including much of Arabia. "

And before Christianity, most of Europe was pagan, and most of the Americas likewise, blah blah blah...

It is muslims who are participating, funding, and sheltering muslims in jihad against the west. It is muslims who take perverse pleasure in seeing falling towers, beheaded infidels, bombed jews, and dead Russian school children.

And just like I said, it was Christians that supported the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia. And now it's Christian who are ready to take a perverse pleasure in the death of innocent muslims.

So what? Why should you consider *all* Christians or *all* Muslims guilty because of what *some* of them do?

would the murder of all white people have been justified in slave-era America? That's the definition of war.

No. War and murder are two different concepts.

But the US was willing to mass-murder 200 million communists just to keep them from invading western Europe. But I can see it was all a mistake now.

No, dearie -- given the nuclear exchange that might take place, the point was that the US was willing to destroy the *whole of the world*, not just 200 millions, in order to keep them from invading western Europe. I'll let others decide whether such a high-risks gamble (betting everything on whether the other side would be sane enough to consider you insane enough to go ahead with it) was a good one. It turned out for the best because those 200 millions *didn't* have to be killed, only threatened to be killed.

But I'd not want to live in a world, where the bluff was called and my children would be born with two heads and a tail. So don't use such an argument please, it's not your best one by far.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-13 9:36:26 PM|| 2004-10-13 9:36:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Hmm. Is Western Civilization monolithic? Is there one core set of ideas, beliefs, and practices, adherence to which makes one a member of it, while departure (apparently) from one of those ideas makes one a non-member (as Aris seems to imply)? How far and upon whom do those ideas, beliefs, and practices apply? Is the actual set open to debate?

Clearly thinking dangerous thoughts here...

Posted by Ptah 2004-10-13 9:59:18 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-10-13 9:59:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Ptah> "Is Western Civilization monolithic?"

Here, I'd once drawn a map when I was bored: http://users.otenet.gr/~katsaris/misc/global-map.gif (though it's clumsy at spots)

In the legend, the bits and pieces that I consider "the West" and "Western civilisation" are the four blue-lettered groupings. Or you can call them "good guys". Or "the Free world". Whatever suits your fancy.

My own usage of "West" and "Western civilisation" I think owes more to the Cold War, and the protection of liberties in the chief leading countries of the so-called "West" which weren't found in either the Eastern bloc nor the Third World.

I'm not particularly interested in those definitions of "West" that seem instead to be used as synonyms for "Christendom". If Byzantium or the Papal states were "West", then no affection or loyalty on my part towards *those*.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-13 10:15:04 PM|| 2004-10-13 10:15:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 So when the muslims go digging through your cellars, dragging out innocent 12-year old Greek boys and girls, and shooting their brains out if they refuse to convert to Islam, you will handle it in a cool and Oh So Continental manner and maybe fight the terrorists/jihadis? Even if you win that battle, others will come, and massacre many more of you in you homes than you can kill of them. Without taking the fight to their homes and destroying the religion that will destroy you, you have acceded to the conditions of slow genocide.

And before Christianity, most of Europe was pagan, and most of the Americas likewise, blah blah blah...
And did Christian Crusaders conquer most of Europe with the sword? With the consent and approval of the Pope, did they sack the city you live in, kill the men, enslave and convert the children, and carry off the women for their sex slaves?

And just like I said, it was Christians that supported the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia.
And just who were those Christians yelling for muslim heads? Were they in Europe, whose only action was inaction? Where were the Crusader Legions marching to vanquish the Bosnian muslims? Were they in the US, who eventually bombed the crap out of the Serbs? If the situation was reversed, can you think of any muslim country who would have come to the Serbs rescue?

would the murder of all white people have been justified in slave-era America? That's the definition of war.

No. War and murder are two different concepts.
Don't mix part of your question with the beginning of my response. That's sloppy.

But I'd not want to live in a world, where the bluff was called and my children would be born with two heads and a tail. So don't use such an argument please, it's not your best one by far.
You are right. You and your people would have been much better off standing in line all day for toilet paper and dreaiming one day to own a Trabant. And without external help from the US and other western democracies, that is where you would have been. Let me apologise to all who think like you: You were not worth it. Next time Greece or Old Europe is threatened, I will be on the picket lines protesting to stay the hell away from people like you. Let us part, and go our separate ways. May the new world and the old world never meet again.

Don't call me dearie. Makes you look gay. And in that case, I won't worry about you having children, two heads and a tail, or not.

Posted by ed 2004-10-13 10:16:02 PM|| 2004-10-13 10:16:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 ed, you are a genocidal murderer at heart who keeps on urging for a "final solution" -- I've gotten that already. You think that religious conflict must be solved through religious genocide, you had no problem with racial conflict being solved with racial genocide, and I am not particularly interested in how many other genocides for different types of conflicts you are gonna be advocating in the future.

So, let me put it clearly so that you get it: I'm quite willing to go to war for my country's freedom but I'd DIE rather than commit genocide against innocents. So, if that's your best argument, that supposedly it's inevitable that "us" will have to kill all of "them" or "they" will kill all of "us", then even granting this assumption (which I'm not), your argument remains not good enough: Because I'd rather be among the innocent murdered rather than among the guilty murderers.

If accepting your murderous ideology is my only chance of survival, then why not accept the murderous ideology of the jihadis instead? Your counteroffer sucks as much as theirs.

Clear enough for you yet?

And as for your maniacal rantings they are simply *boring*. Yeah, yeah, we ungrateful Euros who don't see genocidal extermination as a good thing anymore, we don't bloody deserve you having helped us even if you were also helping yourselves in the process. Etc, etc, etc.

You are right. You and your people would have been much better off standing in line all day for toilet paper and dreaiming one day to own a Trabant.

Rather than incinerated you mean? Yes, I dare say that alive and with a chance at future rebellion might be better off than dead or radioactive.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-13 10:50:23 PM|| 2004-10-13 10:50:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Don't call me dearie. Makes you look gay.

Tough, sweetcheeks.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-13 10:53:39 PM|| 2004-10-13 10:53:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Just a quick comment on the whole "Convert or die" thing.

Early in 1492 A.D., King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain celebrated the final unification of all of Spain under Christian rule. One of their first acts to secure the security of their vastly expanded realm was to present the Mulsims and Jews with the choice, "Convert or die." I don't know about the Muslims, but the Jewish population split: part accepted the Cross, and became known to their new fellow religionists as New Christians, or more familiarly as Marranos (pigs); part refused to abandon their religion, and were expelled from the Iberian peninsula even as Chris Columbus was sailing toward the edge of the world.

The presence of the Marranos permently weakened Spanish society and religion. Because the Jews had converted under threat, their faith was (rightfully, in many cases) questioned. Their alliegence to the Crown was (rightfully) questioned. Their goals in interactions with their Christian overlords was (rightfully) questioned. Whereas in the past Spanish nobility had happily married Jewish beauties, now they became obsessed with the purity of their Christian lineage. The Inquisition was welcomed by the Old Christians as an instrument to root out false Christians, who secretly continued to hew to the beliefs they had not freely chosen to give up. And, incidently, rewarded monetarily the State which inherited the wealth of those convicted of impure belief, and rewarded those who turned them in -- increasing the oppression of the developing police state. The Church hierarchy itself was suspected (rightfully) of being tainted, as the clever converts joined priestly and monastery ranks, and turned their Talmudic argumentative techniques on Christian belief and traditions. In the end Spain, which had been given half the world to rule by the Pope, fell in on itself, driven off the cliff by the poison of American gold combined with the legitimate suspician that a good portion of the population was untrustworthy due to anger over being forced to convert in order to live.

Forcing conversion does not achieve changed mindset. For the overall society, the price is too high for the temporary comfort achieved by apparent removal of a real threat.

Sorry, I went on a good deal longer than a brief comment. But I hope you'll find these many words worth chewing over.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-10-13 10:54:04 PM|| 2004-10-13 10:54:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 If you're really interested in the "Christian" position on all of the above, go read the Sermon on the Mount (Bible, Matthew 5-7). Revenge isn't in there anywhere.

Reasonable law endorcement is in the Bible: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good." 1 Peter 2:13-14 Every government is charged with the preservation of public order.

A story from the Liberian War of 1990: Mano and Gio tribesmen rebelled against the Krahn tribesmen currently in power. The Mano attacked a Krahn village and killed a number of people. A Krahn in Monrovia learned of the death of his family members in this raid, and when the Krahn officers ordered retaliation against Mano and Gio, this man went and shot his Mano neighbor and the neighbor's 9 month old son. Gee, didn't make him feel any better. He joined the Krahn militia and killed more Mano and Gio. Gee, now he really didn't feel better. In a refugee camp in Cote D'Ivoire, he found his tent was across the road from the widow of the neighbor he killed. At a camp church he asked the woman forgiveness, and she granted it.

The actions of an ethnic group that attends a particular church are not necessarily the actions of a Christian. The Serbs and Croats proved that point. Too often religious affiliation is simply another way of dividing "Us" from "Them." The protestants and Catholic goons in Northern Ireland have long since reduced their faith to a meaningless label.

Trailing Wife's description of Ferdinand and Isabella above shows that the Spanish Church and the Spanish Royal family lost sight completely of the teachings of Christ in their zeal to combine ethnic and religious conformity. Not faith--conformity.

Islam reeks of forced conformity. Maybe some of that rubbed off on the Spaniards during the Moorish occupation.

Let us defend ourselves reasonably. THis means military action to put Saddam out of business. This means military action to root out terrorist. It does not include going to your neighbor and shooting him.

Posted by mom 2004-10-13 11:56:09 PM|| 2004-10-13 11:56:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Sins of the fathers shall NOT be laid on the heads o the kiddies.

Posted by lex 2004-10-13 11:59:45 PM|| 2004-10-13 11:59:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 ed, you are a genocidal murderer at heart who keeps on urging for a "final solution" -- I've gotten that already. You think that religious conflict must be solved through religious genocide.

Nice try Aris, but no cigar. I call for the same treatment of Islam as Islam treats others. I am not a Euro-sheep who will go quietly into that abattoir of Islam. I have no problem with Buddhism, Confusianism, paganism or voodoo. If Islam had a live and let live attitude, I would have the same feelings for Islam as I have for Buddhism. But Islam is calling for the conversion or destruction (for me the only option) of the infidels, which are you and I. When muslim imams entreat for the destruction of the infidel each Friday. When the most revered muslim scholars, citing the cumulative works of Islam, call for the genocide of the monkeys and pigs. When muslim warriors slaughter populations in the most brutal way. When the muslim faithful cheer their barbarity and offer their children to suicide martyrdom as a gesture of religious piety. That is not a religion that one can peacefully co-exist with. So I call the same for them. You are a smart guy, so can understand symmetry.

Here are the options:
1. Islam suddenly reverses 1400 years of religious teachings and preaches that non-muslims are OK and have as much a right to live as muslims.
2. Islam continues its brutal form of warfare with non-muslims and wins.
3. Islam is destroyed and itâs adherents converted to another religion.
4. Continued warfare in the short term that will end up draining resources and taking thousands each year. Within a generation, nuclear warfare.

2 and 4 are not acceptable end states for me. The power to decide to live in peace with others rests wholey within the Islamic world. But what is their incentive for 1? Where are the imams calling for peace and brotherhood with the infidels? Where are the learned men of Islam calling for understainding of the lives and customs of the infidel? Islam are on the march and expanding territory with little opposition. Why give up a good thing? So I do not expect Islam to change their tune and call for peaceful co-existence until, just like Germany and Japan, much of it is destroyed and their belief systems forcibly changed. I am a pessimist in this regard.

Rather than incinerated you mean? Yes, I dare say that alive and with a chance at future rebellion might be better off than dead or radioactive.

You make the common mistake of either choosing the extremes of living under domination or dying. I, and many of countrymen, would rather fight and destroy the evil. Just as my fore fathers would not live under Nazism or Communist domination, I wonât live Islamic tyranny. But Greeks are used to living under domination. So go ahead and do nothing. Europe is already well on its way to muslim domination. If you and your kids survive the march of Islam into Europe, then maybe in 100 years our descendants will meet on the field of battle, yours under the flag of Islam.

Don't call me dearie. Makes you look gay.

Tough, sweetcheeks.

So you admit it.

Posted by ed 2004-10-14 12:18:41 AM|| 2004-10-14 12:18:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#53 Nice try Aris, but no cigar. I call for the same treatment of Islam as Islam treats others

No, you called for the same treatment on Muslims as the most violent form of Islam calls on others. Which according to you does indeed mean religious genocide, as you spent two pages detailing.

Islam is calling for the conversion or destruction (for me the only option) of the infidels,

And you echoed their calls for conversion or destruction of the infidels word-for-word (except not allowing dhimmitude). That makes you a convert.

Where civilisational value is concerned, you are already a convert to the most aggressive and genocidal form of Islam there is, ed. There are hundreds of millions of muslims out there that are far less "Islamic" and far more tolerant in attitude about religious freedom than you are.

So you admit it.

Admit what? That I "look gay" to you? I am *really* not interested in how I look to you, dearie.

The rest is still just babble about how innocent Muslim children are not really innocent Muslim children after all: No matter how you detail the supposed need for the genocide, you've still not been able to deny the fact that what you describe does indeed entail dragging little children and shooting their brains out if they refuse to convert. Or perhaps some sort of gas chamber can be devised. Just don't ask what they've been burning to produce all that dust in the windowsills.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-14 12:49:04 AM|| 2004-10-14 12:49:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#54 Destroy Islam in the same way Nazism was destroyed. The fate of Islam will be the same as the fate of Nazism, dead and buried. Why were Nazi leaders executed and their subordinates jailed? Why were any professing loyalties to Nazism jailed in the west and executed in the east? Why were any signs of Nazism erased and suppressed for 50 years, and the people converted to democracy or communism? Why wasn't the structure of Nazi Germany left in place? Was it because the ideology itself was evil, and left alone, the ideology would reconstitute itself through propaganda, intimidation and brutality, much as Islam does today?

But unlike the harsh fate of Germans of 1945, I would give the muslims today the choice to profess that non-muslims have a right to live and then change their religion doctrine to act upon it. Those millions of muslims you speak of that are far less "Islamic" wonât have a problem declaring non-muslim have a right to live. Will they? The mullahs wonât mind stopping the cries for the blood of the infidels. Will they? Restructuring the religion to allow others to live, shouldnât kill them? Should it? As for the rest of the mullahs and those who follow them? They can die in battle and fulfill their religious obligations. As for the children? They believe what they are taught. Currently they are taught muslims are superior to all and infidels are sheep for the slaughter. They can be taught a better religion.

You can cry about future genocide or the historical slaughter such as Hamburg, but the only gas chambers belonged to the Nazis and the only genocide in this fight belongs to Islam and the slaughter of 100s of thousands of women and children prisoners at Jumna and Jajnagar, the cities completely depopulated and the inhabitants skulls stacked into heeps, or the modern day slaughter of millions by muslims.

And I donât see Old Europe doing much to stop it. Instead I see Europe selling nuclear and missile technology to Iran, who has flat out declared they will commit genocide of the Jews and won't hesitate to use them on the Americans. But you would choose to lay in the same bed with those who seek to kill you. Do you think by doing nothing, they will spare you, at least until you are the last? Good night and Sleep light.

Posted by ed 2004-10-14 2:36:45 AM|| 2004-10-14 2:36:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#55 I'm sure Aris realized how "dangerous" my thoughts were, and so decided to only answer the question of geographical extent, rather than the above-cited question that related to the corpus of ideas that make up "Western Civilization", behavior contrary to which is supposed to destroy the foundation Western Civilization, rendering it unfit and unworthy of Aris' support

Ptah, at this point you are wanking again: If you had actually read my posts again you'd see I answered you with individual liberties as the crucial ideological point I mentioned.

But the rest of your post about the difference between ed and me is more accurate, though I would describe it differently: I'd say that Ed is all about the collective ("they" collectively did something bad so "we" have the right to collectively punish "them"), while I am all about the individual. There is no collective "them" over the whole of Islam that did something bad.

Preemption or lack of preemption has little to do with the concept of individual liberties. But the presence or lack of genocidal warfare *does* have to do with it -- people who believe in collectives where individuals are nothing but object-instances (to use a programmatic term) of their races/nations are definitely more eager to genocide, same way they are more eager to nationalistic insults. That's ed's lasting attitude: he's several times resorted to grouping me with either the Euros or the Greeks in this threads, same way he's grouped all Muslims together. That's the only way his mind can work.

On my part I will never accept to group all Muslims into a single "they" when talking about blame attributed for crimes. I'm *all* about the individual.

"How does that jive with the western ideal of tolerance for different ideas?"

Because I am not asking ed to be jailed or executed for his genocidal opinions, *that's* how it jives with the western ideal of tolerance.

ed> You are still maniacal and you are still babbling.

Those millions of muslims you speak of that are far less "Islamic" wonât have a problem declaring non-muslim have a right to live. Will they?

No, those *millions* individually won't have such a problem. The problem is that you demand that the whole religion collectively changes before you allow even one of them to live. That's what makes you a genocidal murderer in your ideology.

An individual that proclaims your right to live but nonetheless doesn't manage to change his fellow billion of believers, should still die according to you.

You are still all about the collective.

Ptah> "Does Aris hold that despite such a "code of silence", all Inguishians who adhere to that code are NOT GUILTY by cooperation, support, and association?

Can you find *which* Ingushetians are guilty of adhering to this code, or are you again for collective punishments?

If he cites past history happening to them as "justification", why does citing history somehow NOT JUSTIFY what other people do?

Somehow I fail to remember a single incident of me ever citing history as "justification" for any terrorist act. That would oppose the very core of my belief system.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-14 12:00:39 PM|| 2004-10-14 12:00:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Indeed you did, Aris.

In fact, I've gone back and looked more closely at your points, and I see where my problem with you is, and it IS my fault entirely: you use a lot of counterfactual reasoning and arguments with little preface, making me believe you AGREE with them.

Okay, you may think I'm bullshitting you or making fun of you, but I'm not, honestly: I apologize, and confess that I have misunderstood you. My very poor excuse is that I skim too much in an attempt to cover as much internet ground in the little time I have, and for penitence, if I object to something you have said, I'll re-read it, repeat it back, and ask for clarification before I say anything.

If you're skeptical of my sincerity, well, I don't blame you a bit, and you have every right to expect that my actions should prove my words. Time will just have to tell based on opportunity.

Posted by Ptah 2004-10-14 2:57:16 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-10-14 2:57:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 I'm with Ed and Ptah. Aris is a whiner. Nothing out there is "fair," and he'll never be happy. The water is too wet, the air is too gassy, and there's no way to fight a "fair" war because the tendency of self interest has always lead to wars of "some" or "few" against "many" or "all."
Life's a bitch; suck it up and accept reality instead of expecting some sort of world that works according to "moral absolutes." Or else, just admit that your entire conceptualization of the universe is that of a perfect distopia.

Or, as usual, you could just admit you believe it's all America's fault. That little anectode about a one-nation nuclear arms race was a little telling. And yes, I think Ptah's right about the counterfactual reasoning and argument against conclusion.
It's a little like shitting in bed and pushing it down with your feet.

Posted by Asedwich 2004-10-14 7:49:40 PM|| 2004-10-14 7:49:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Ptah> This is gracious of you. I'll believe you and consider the slate wiped clean, if you do the same about any insults I may have sent your way in the past. Thank you, and apology more than accepted.

Asedwich> I don't know what "argument against conclusion" means and I only figured the meaning of "counterfactual reasoning" through context and a bit of googling -- but I think I understood Ptah's last post better than you did.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-14 8:13:48 PM|| 2004-10-14 8:13:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Thanks Aris. Everyone else may think I've gone off the deep end, but I think you understand that I'm not blanket agreeing with you, but merely saying that I may have misunderstood you. We very likely will disagree, because there are cultural factors between us that will motivate us to choose different solutions, but it is better that we disagree based on a true understanding of each other's position, rather than misunderstanding each other and waste our precious time taking ill-advised potshots at scarecrows and other straw men.

Posted by Ptah 2004-10-14 10:59:47 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-10-14 10:59:47 PM|| Front Page Top

00:20 Omomoling Uninter6675
02:15 Angens Jiting4889
11:54 Glereger Cligum6229
12:01 Glereger Cligum6229
19:48 Fred
19:48 Fred
20:23 Boris Pribich
20:23 Boris Pribich
20:45 Cromorong Chomble7321
20:45 Cromorong Chomble7321
20:48 Cromorong Chomble7321
22:50 Miss America
10:52 Mrs. Davis
10:48 .com
10:44 tu3031
10:40 lex
10:38 Groluck Spomoger8553
17:47 Omavinter Gleart2765
15:13 tu3031
15:04 4moreyears!
14:59 badanov
14:50 Nick Speth
22:59 Ptah
22:52 Asedwich