Christian racism...predictable...

[Ed]

The Christian peace group said today that the policies of the United States and British governments were ultimately to blame for the kidnapping. "We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and the U.K. governments due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people," the group said in a statement posted on its Web site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/international/middleeast/30cnd-Iraq.html?hp&ex=1133413200&en=469abc3dac6c717c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

In other words, the perpatrators are little more than animals, almost devoid of free will. Seems I've heard this before...

[Darat]

I've read several reports about this and heard interviews with the friends of the British bloke (from the Christian group). And it was my impression that they somehow thought that because they were against the war this would keep them safe.

Have these people not noticed that most of the killings currently in Iraq are Iraqis and/or other Muslim terrorist killing other Iraqi and Muslims? Did that not clue them in that the "war" might not be the only reason for the current violence?

Still I hope they don't need to suffer anymore for their stupidity.

[shecky]

Racism? Not indicated by that passage. More like extreme naivety.

[Ed]

They are Crusaders and should suffer appropriately.

I am not really certain whether any soldier (Iraqi or US or Brit) should be endangered by attempting to free them. Perhaps it is a lesson that the group can consider prayerfully and with fortitude.

[Ed]

Racism? Not indicated by that passage. More like extreme naivety.

It is the racism of low expectations. Clear as a bell.

[Luke T.]

They are Crusaders and should suffer appropriately.

I am not really certain whether any soldier (Iraqi or US or Brit) should be endangered by attempting to free them. Perhaps it is a lesson that the group can consider prayerfully and with fortitude.

Does anyone besides me remember the Christians who were imprisoned in Afghanistan by the Taliban for handing out Bibles just prior to 9/11?

[Darat]

They are Crusaders and should suffer appropriately.

I am not really certain whether any soldier (Iraqi or US or Brit) should be endangered by attempting to free them. Perhaps it is a lesson that the group can consider prayerfully and with fortitude.


The group has requested no violence be used in trying to secure their rescue... (seriously they have and for that I've got to admire them for sticking to their guns- so to speak).

[Ed]

Does anyone besides me remember the Christians who were imprisoned in Afghanistan by the Taliban for handing out Bibles just prior to 9/11?

Yeah, vaguely. Perhaps this is an example of natural selection at work.

[Luke T.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1657093.stm

[Luke T.]

Yeah, vaguely. Perhaps this is an example of natural selection at work.

Just wondering what terrible oppressive war the U.S. was waging which led to their arrest at the time.

[Jocko]

The group has requested no violence be used in trying to secure their rescue... (seriously they have and for that I've got to admire them for sticking to their guns- so to speak).

Considering the group's stance on the presence of troops at all, they have no moral choice but to refuse rescue. Consequently, I hope not a single minute of time is wasted on what must, by definition, be a failed attempt to secure their release.

Where I come from, that's not called integrity, it's called getting caught in your own rhetoric. Ah well, no one ever said martyrdom was easy!

[Ed]

The group has requested no violence be used in trying to secure their rescue... (seriously they have and for that I've got to admire them for sticking to their guns- so to speak).

Right


Reminds me of the old "comic" bit where an entertainer, while acting embaressed by the applause, signals with his other hand to keep it coming.

[Luke T.]

The group has requested no violence be used in trying to secure their rescue... (seriously they have and for that I've got to admire them for sticking to their guns- so to speak).

So we know where they are being held and are able to attempt a rescue?

[TragicMonkey]

I hope that if they are rescued, they're made to foot the bill for the operation.

[Freakshow]

The group has requested no violence be used in trying to secure their rescue... (seriously they have and for that I've got to admire them for sticking to their guns- so to speak).Sorry, but I can't agree. I don't admire idiocy. Sticking to a principle is stupid, when it is a stupid principle to begin with. As my sig says: "Never show weakness around wolves." - Bernard "The Executioner" Hopkins

[Beerina]

They are Crusaders and should suffer appropriately.

So you think it's OK to kidnap, threaten, and murder people who are trying to talk to you about your religion, or to convert you using only words and non-violence?

Or are you just upset about the idiocy of going into Iraq to proselity, proselety, attempt conversions?

[Ed]

So you think it's OK to kidnap, threaten, and murder people who are trying to talk to you about your religion, or to convert you using only words and non-violence?

Or are you just upset about the idiocy of going into Iraq to proselity, proselety, attempt conversions?

We are, according to the Christian Group, dealing with animals who have no capacity for introspection, but only react to the behaviors of those higher up the evolutionary tree. Words like "kidnap" with the racist (in this context) perjorative overtones are really not defined for them. They "react" to stimuli, bearing no responsibility. They are amoral, like a kitten attacking a mouse.

[Freakshow]

So you think it's OK to kidnap, threaten, and murder people who are trying to talk to you about your religion, or to convert you using only words and non-violence?

Or are you just upset about the idiocy of going into Iraq to proselity, proselety, attempt conversions?I think it is okay for me to sit back and laugh at the predicament of pacifist morons (I said the same thing twice) who think that by being nice to people, you can cease all violent intentions. Oh well. People sometimes get what's coming to them. You make your bed, you have to lie in it.

[zenith-nadir]

They are amoral, like a kitten attacking a mouse.The kidnappers/terrorists/suicide bombers/freedom fighters/take-your-pick are simply automatons Ed. Everyone knows that. It is the "actions of the U.S. and the U.K. governments" which trigger the mechanism. Think of it like...ahhh... dropping a coin down a slot. ;)

[Ed]

The kidnappers/terrorists/suicide bombers/freedom fighters/take-your-pick are simply automatons Ed. Everyone knows that. It is the "actions of the U.S. and the U.K. governments" which trigger the mechanism. Think of it like...ahhh... dropping a coin down a slot. ;)

If the coin is a US Quarter, a symbol of the malevolent US economy, your analogy is dead spot on.

[Ed]

I think it is okay for me to sit back and laugh at the predicament of pacifist morons (I said the same thing twice) who think that by being nice to people, you can cease all violent intentions. Oh well. People sometimes get what's coming to them. You make your bed, you have to lie in it.

You know, you are probably hurting their feelings.

[Mycroft]

So you think it's OK to kidnap, threaten, and murder people who are trying to talk to you about your religion, or to convert you using only words and non-violence?

Or are you just upset about the idiocy of going into Iraq to proselity, proselety, attempt conversions?

This group isn't about conversions to Christianity. They have a strict policy against proselytizing. They are in Iraq solely to protest the war and to “document” human rights abuses.

[Freakshow]

You know, you are probably hurting their feelings.Yeah, I'm just mean that way.

[Freakshow]

This group isn't about conversions to Christianity. They have a strict policy against proselytizing. They are in Iraq solely to protest the war and to “document” human rights abuses.Does being kidnapped count as a human rights abuse? I wonder how well they'll document it?

[bob_kark]

They are Crusaders and should suffer appropriately.

I am not really certain whether any soldier (Iraqi or US or Brit) should be endangered by attempting to free them. Perhaps it is a lesson that the group can consider prayerfully and with fortitude.

Please excuse me if I'm ignorant about this group, but from the information I've been able to find out about them online, they seem to be peace advocates. I wasn't able to see that they had done much more than giving non-violent protest seminars to people in Iraq and other countries, documenting civil rights abuses, donating to charities, promoting peace, saving the environment, etc... What exactly did they do that would make them Crusaders?

[Ed]

Does being kidnapped count as a human rights abuse? I wonder how well they'll document it?

Yes it does. And, since we are responsible, it is another example of the abuses that we have committed.

[Ed]

Please excuse me if I'm ignorant about this group, but from the information I've been able to find out about them online, they seem to be peace advocates. I wasn't able to see that they had done much more than giving non-violent protest seminars to people in Iraq and other countries, documenting civil rights abuses, donating to charities, promoting peace, saving the environment, etc... What exactly did they do that would make them Crusaders?

They are from the West, they are Christians, they are in a Muslim country. It is a fairly low bar.

As an aside, any stats on the non-violent protests that they have conducted recently in Syria? How about Iran? No? North Korea anyone? Cuba, perhaps?

I thibk that their penchent for safe whining bit them in the ass this time. Pity.

[Luke T.]

Their mission in Iraq:

Iraq – a Baghdad-based presence since October 2002. Team members accompanied the Iraqi people through the U.S.-led 2003 war and continue during the post-war occupation to expose abusive acts by U.S. Armed Forces and support Iraqis committed to nonviolent resistance.

http://www.cpt.org/publications/history.php

And currently on their homepage:

We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. governments due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people.

http://www.cpt.org/index.html

[bob_kark]

They are from the West, they are Christians, they are in a Muslim country. It is a fairly low bar.

So, in effect, any western Christian soldiers/contractors/diplomats/ect... in Iraq are also Crusaders and therefore deserved to be kidnapped and deserve whatever happens to them next?

That bar seems a bit too low.

[Ed]

Their mission in Iraq:



http://www.cpt.org/publications/history.php

And currently on their homepage:



http://www.cpt.org/index.html

Very very cool.

So, we should have a long list of their support of Kurds being gassed. No? what about keeping track of Saddam's abuses? No? How about peaceful protests pre-invasion? Any?

A pattern is emerging.

Hypocrite is a strong word. Pansey assed self loathing scum is marginally better, and sounds better to the ear. I'll use that.

[bob_kark]

They are from the West, they are Christians, they are in a Muslim country. It is a fairly low bar.

As an aside, any stats on the non-violent protests that they have conducted recently in Syria? How about Iran? No? North Korea anyone? Cuba, perhaps?

I thibk that their penchent for safe whining bit them in the ass this time. Pity.

Ah, you edited your post... Well they did travel to Gaza, Haiti, Bosnia, and Chechnya, according to their website at least.

http://www.cpt.org/publications/history.php

[Ed]

So, in effect, any western Christian soldiers/contractors/diplomats/ect... in Iraq are also Crusaders and therefore deserved to be kidnapped and deserve whatever happens to them next?

That bar seems a bit too low.


That's right. The Sword of Allah is swift and sure and unmerciful (and sharp--ask those Crusaders whom the US forced their captors to behead). Sometimes it is the Zippo of Allah, witness those Crusader Contractors that the US forced the mob to burn.

The list of things that we forced those poor people to do is almost endless.

Unfortunately, there appears to be no sign of the Tickling of Allah or the Sarcasim of Allah. He is a bloody Diety, but Righteous (and dangerous).

[DavidJames]

Hypocrite is a strong word. Pansey assed self loathing scum is marginally better, and sounds better to the ear. I'll use that.Hyprocite, depending on the facts, may be the correct word. Using the later phrase says more about you then them.

[Ed]

Ah, you edited your post... Well they did travel to Gaza, Haiti, Bosnia, and Chechnya, according to their website at least.

http://www.cpt.org/publications/history.php

My Aunt Tilly could travel to all of those places. There is a world of difference between seeing the sights and taking a risk. Having not seen any christian missionary gonad necklaces from any address from the above countries on ebay, I will provisionally conclude that they were playing it safe. Bitching about the US is safe. Well, ... sometimes ... sepends where I suppose.

[Ed]

Hyprocite, depending on the facts, may be the correct word. Using the later phrase says more about you then them.

Agree. Modesty forbids me from elaborating further on my just ability as a person who can turn a catchy phrase.

edit to add: You might see some choice examples after the president's speech tonight.

[bob_kark]

That's right. The Sword of Allah is swift and sure and unmerciful (and sharp--ask those Crusaders whom the US forced their captors to behead). Sometimes it is the Zippo of Allah, witness those Crusader Contractors that the US forced the mob to burn.

The list of things that we forced those poor people to do is almost endless.

Unfortunately, there appears to be no sign of the Tickling of Allah or the Sarcasim of Allah. He is a bloody Diety, but Righteous (and dangerous).

So, are you saying that your initial comment about them being Crusaders and deserving whatever happens to them was just a sarcastic remark? If not, I don't understand how this supports your position.

[bob_kark]

My Aunt Tilly could travel to all of those places. There is a world of difference between seeing the sights and taking a risk. Having not seen any christian missionary gonad necklaces from any address from the above countries on ebay, I will provisionally conclude that they were playing it safe. Bitching about the US is safe. Well, ... sometimes ... sepends where I suppose.

I still don't understand. Are you upset by this group because they don't risk their lives often enough, are you upset because they disagree with US foreign policy, or are you upset because you think they're racist for a statement they made against US foreign policy?

[Darat]

I still don't understand. Are you upset by this group because they don't risk their lives often enough, are you upset because they disagree with US foreign policy, or are you upset because you think they're racist for a statement they made against US foreign policy?

Ed is calling them racist because they are apparently saying the Iraqi's cannot control their behaviour that all they can do is react to what others do to them.

Now I think that's just a post modernism PC redefinition of a useful word "racist" BUT I do think Ed has a point even if it isn't about the group being racist.

The point is that no one forced anyone to kidnap these people, the kidnappers are 100% responsible for their actions, not the USA government, not the UK government or any of the other governments in the coalition*


*That does not mean I don't understand how people can end up believing they have no other option but that doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their own actions.

[Ed]

Ed is calling them racist because they are apparently saying the Iraqi's cannot control their behaviour that all they can do is react to what others do to them.

Youssa massa. Youse gots it now!



Now I think that's just a post modernism PC redefinition of a useful word "racist" BUT I do think Ed has a point even if it isn't about the group being racist.

No. Post modernism is trendy. I transcend trend. This is a post-post modernist interpretation that declares that any level of inconsistancy towards any group with respect to how judgements are formed about another is, ipso facto, racist. You teader on the edge yourself now, Darat.

Consider this, if I said "well, those people (nudge, nudge) in New Oreleans, they just couldn't help themselves now, could they? All those bright shiney things in those unguarded stores and nary a policeman in sight. It's not like they could control themselves now could they?" You would say "racist". When the same is applied to another group it becomes a "redefinition". That is, in itself, racist. Two standards, one behavior.

The point is that no one forced anyone to kidnap these people, the kidnappers are 100% responsible for their actions, not the USA government, not the UK government or any of the other governments in the coalition*


*That does not mean I don't understand how people can end up believing they have no other option but that doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their own actions.

Agree. My people, in Africa, used to boil them (missionaries) in a big pot. Difference was, we always admitted it. And, frankly, missionaries tend to be annoying and less of them is probably a good thing.

[bob_kark]

Ed is calling then racist because they are apparently saying the Iraqi's cannot control their behaviour that all they can do is react to what others do to them.

Now I think that's just a post modernism PC redefinition of a useful word "racist" BUT I do think Ed has a point even if it isn't about the group being racist.

The point is that no one forced anyone to kidnap these people, the kidnappers are 100% responsible for their actions, not the USA government, not the UK government or any of the other governments in the coalition*


*That does not mean I don't understand how people can end up believing they have no other option but that doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their own actions.

I do completely agree that the US Government is not responsible for these kidnappings. I also agree that no one forced these kidnappers to... well kidnap these people. I just don't agree that the people who were kidnapped had it coming to them.

[Manny]

Hyprocite, depending on the facts, may be the correct word. Using the later phrase says more about you then them.Hmm, perhaps. Let's find a CPT member and see what he thinks of himself. I am (http://lovinrevolution.org/Bio.htm) a white, middle class, queer American male. I am an anti-racist & anti-sexist; I seek to dismantle my racist patriarchal privilege & end my oppressive behaviors. I was raised Catholic, but I consider myself independently spiritual because organized religion was designed to divide & oppress. I am an anarchist; I seek to tear down hierarchies in my personal interactions, organizing structures, & society at large. I am a revolutionary; this US-dominated global capitalist system is inherently flawed & I aim to help accelerate its inevitable collapse & create a truly sustainable & egalitarian society. I work for peace in my personal interactions and I oppose all wars waged by governments to ensure their dominance, but I am NOT a pacifist; I find nonviolent tactics powerful and effective, but violence & property destruction have always been an essential part of revolutionary movements & I support everyone's right to self defense. I am a political vegan; I try not to create economic demand for products that are violent & exploitative to people, animals, or the earth but I'll eat anything I find in a dumpster or is offered by a host. Nope. I'd say the latter phrase sums them up pretty good.

[Darat]

I do completely agree that the US Government is not responsible for these kidnappings. I also agree that no one forced these kidnappers to... well kidnap these people. I just don't agree that the people who were kidnapped had it coming to them.

I agree they didn't have it coming to them, however they did seem to act in an incredibly naive way. Going probably to the most dangerous place for a "westerner" at the moment without adequate protection (which seems to be the case here) is acting in a naive manner.

[Darat]

..snip..

Consider this, if I said "well, those people (nudge, nudge) in New Oreleans, they just couldn't help themselves now, could they? All those bright shiney things in those unguarded stores and nary a policeman in sight. It's not like they could control themselves now could they?" You would say "racist". When the same is applied to another group it becomes a "redefinition". That is, in itself, racist. Two standards, one behavior.

...snip..

I wouldn't have called that racist, just a stupid statement and I'd have said the same "they are still responsible for their own actions".

[Darat]

Hmm, perhaps. Let's find a CPT member and see what he thinks of himself. Nope. I'd say the latter phrase sums them up pretty good.

For once I'd say Ed was a trifle understated.

[Ed]

Hmm, perhaps. Let's find a CPT member and see what he thinks of himself. Nope. I'd say the latter phrase sums them up pretty good.

I fear that the terrorists may return them. Can you imagine how irretating a person like that would be for hours on end?

[Ed]

For once I'd say Ed was a trifle understated.

There is a reason I am who I am.

"Brilliant!"

"Dietying!"

[DavidJames]

Hmm, perhaps. Let's find a CPT member and see what he thinks of himself. Nope. I'd say the latter phrase sums them up pretty good.Since there is nothing in that bio which a reasonable person suggests "Pansey assed self loathing scum", I'll stick to my orginal comment.

Why the childish name calling?

[Darat]

I fear that the terrorists may return them. Can you imagine how irretating a person like that would be for hours on end?

I do find it hard not to make a joke about their predicament - damn these human emotions!

I can imagine them trying to explain to their captors that they are on their side, that they identify with their struggle and totally missing the point that the people who have kidnapped them just sees them as a useful commodity.

[Ed]

I wouldn't have called that racist, just a stupid statement and I'd have said the same "they are still responsible for their own actions".

Then I have no argument. For most, the term "those people" would be construed as racist. Happens here all the time. Gotta watch yourself.

[Darat]

Since there is nothing in that bio which a reasonable person suggests "Pansey assed self loathing scum", I'll stick to my orginal comment.

Why the childish name calling?

Because at times some people do seem to deserve it?

I have great respect for pacifists, I think they can be the bravest people imaginable and I have great respect for people willing to make a stand for what they believe in.

But for people* who come out with crap like " I seek to dismantle my racist patriarchal privilege & end my oppressive behaviors." Well they shouldn't be allowed into the real world without a nurse maid.

*I was a left wing political activists so knew a lot of people who came out with crap like that and I couldn't stand it then and as I've gotten older I've lost any patience with it. It is nothing more then a load of meaningless cliches.

[Ed]

Since there is nothing in that bio which a reasonable person suggests "Pansey assed self loathing scum", I'll stick to my orginal comment.

Why the childish name calling?

Pansey assed attacking the US who will not (as they well know) treat them as a real oppressor would, hence their bravery in uncovering US atrocities and not-thereness when it came to Saddam.

self loathingI am a white, middle class, queer American male. I am an anti-racist & anti-sexist; I seek to dismantle my racist patriarchal privilege & end my oppressive behaviors. I was raised Catholic, but I consider myself independently spiritual because organized religion was designed to divide & oppress. I am an anarchist; I seek to tear down hierarchies in my personal interactions, organizing structures, & society at large. I am a revolutionary; this US-dominated global capitalist system is inherently flawed & I aim to help accelerate its inevitable collapse & create a truly sustainable & egalitarian society. I work for peace in my personal interactions and I oppose all wars waged by governments to ensure their dominance, but I am NOT a pacifist; I find nonviolent tactics powerful and effective, but violence & property destruction have always been an essential part of revolutionary movements & I support everyone's right to self defense. I am a political vegan; I try not to create economic demand for products that are violent & exploitative to people, animals, or the earth but I'll eat anything I find in a dumpster or is offered by a host.


Scum He is a threat, by his own words to my family since we are somewhat privlidged. I get the impression that he could justify any enormity direct at those he disagrees with.

A perfectly descriptive phrase. I am open to other suggestions, however.

[Manny]

Since there is nothing in that bio which a reasonable person suggests "Pansey assed self loathing scum", I'll stick to my orginal comment. People who "seek to dismantle (their) racist patriarchal privilege & end (their) oppressive behaviors" are both pansy-assed and self-loathing and people who eat out of dumpsters are scum. Hope that helps.

Why the childish name calling?Because when we call them "dirty, smelly hippies" all the time it gets boring and people tend to read our posts in Cartman's voice, neither of which is desirable.

Don't get me wrong. I hope these guys get away (except if a ransom is paid, of course).


ETA: ED beat me to the punch. But still.
Further ETA: Dammit, Darat beat me too! I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!

[Ed]

Because at times some people do seem to deserve it?

Very enlightened. Sometimes an ass whuppin' is desperately needed.

But for people* who come out with crap like " I seek to dismantle my racist patriarchal privilege & end my oppressive behaviors." Well they shouldn't be allowed into the real world without a nurse maid.

I am really curious. Would you deconstruct/critique that statement and tell me why it offends you? I am serious. It is very off to me but I have a hard time putting my finger on what is the really objectionable part.

[mumblethrax]

All of this strikes me as a tortured attempt to avoid culpability for effecting the breakdown in social order that allowed these kidnappings (and subsequent beheadings) to occur. The people directly responsible are reprehensible, but we cannot avoid indirect responsibility for what is happening in Iraq. Where the 'ultimate' blame lies, I cannot say--but remove any part of the puzzle (the US invasion, the peacenik presence, the Iraqi kidnappers) and these crimes wouldn't be being commited.

If we take this absolutist view of moral responsibilty, we have no justification left for continued occupation. It would then be the responsibility of the Iraqis to do what is right, and if they don't manage to create a better society, who are we to treat them as moral children incapable of achieving that goal? It's awfully suspect to admit extenuating circumstances on the one hand (that the climate of fear under Saddam prevented Iraqis from doing what was right) and to dismiss it on the other.

[Mycroft]

Does being kidnapped count as a human rights abuse? I wonder how well they'll document it?

If it's not done by the US or Israel, it's not a human rights abuse. Didn't you know that? If you're a nut-case jihadi who kidnaps a westerner and chops off their head to make another snuff-film for al-Jaseera, it’s still the fault of the USA.

[Ed]

I think, on reflection, that a real man (or woman) wouldn't moan, they would simply do what is right. Putting carefully worded phrases (perhaps practiced in front of a mirror?) replete with trendy buzz-words to the basic problems that we all see and face seems hopelessly, terminally hip and self absorbed, like it was thought about too much. The idea that tearing down something that is working for a billion people or so and not have a notion of what to replace it with borders on the criminally irresponsible.

Just thinking about why that idiots rant bothers me.

[Darat]

Very enlightened. Sometimes an ass whuppin' is desperately needed.



I am really curious. Would you deconstruct/critique that statement and tell me why it offends you? I am serious. It is very off to me but I have a hard time putting my finger on what is the really objectionable part.

OK:

I am a white, middle class, queer American male.

Surprised this doesn't get right up your nose, it is racism. Imagine if this person heard me describing someone as "a black, working class" person as if that said something about them beyond a skin colour? Would he accept that no he would accuse me of racism.

It is also an appeal to the "white man's" guilt which is a form of the behaviour you earlier described as racism.

I am an anti-racist & anti-sexist;

Following on from his first racist statement he has now shown he is a hypocrite.

I was going to go on but the mood I'm in tonight I'd probably better not since his posturing is making me feel nauseas as I re-read it.

[Jocko]

I think, on reflection, that a real man (or woman) wouldn't moan, they would simply do what is right. Putting carefully worded phrases (perhaps practiced in front of a mirror?) replete with trendy buzz-words to the basic problems that we all see and face seems hopelessly, terminally hip and self absorbed, like it was thought about too much. The idea that tearing down something that is working for a billion people or so and not have a notion of what to replace it with borders on the criminally irresponsible.

Just thinking about why that idiots rant bothers me.

It's that, yes, but it goes deeper IMO. It's that Kool-Aid induced certainty, that insufferably affected superiority that triggers a natural urge to inflict a Wall Street-style corrective action on their egos.

If you've ever been caught in a conversation with a Jehovah's Witness, then you know that placid yet intellectually vacuous tone I'm talking about.

And the worst part is, they absolutely never, ever, EVER shut up.

[Darat]

All of this strikes me as a tortured attempt to avoid culpability for effecting the breakdown in social order that allowed these kidnappings (and subsequent beheadings) to occur. The people directly responsible are reprehensible, but we cannot avoid indirect responsibility for what is happening in Iraq. Where the 'ultimate' blame lies, I cannot say--but remove any part of the puzzle (the US invasion, the peacenik presence, the Iraqi kidnappers) and these crimes wouldn't be being commited.

..snip,..

By the definitions organisations like Amnesty International use kidnappings and brutal forms of murder dressed up as executions were common under Saddam.

You are right mind you - if Saddam was still in power these kidnappings wouldn't have happened but others would have done.

[Jocko]

OK:

I am a white, middle class, queer American male.

Surprised this doesn't get up right up your nose, it is racism. Imagine if this person heard me describing someone as "a black, working class" person as if that said something about them beyond a skin colour? Would he accept that no he would accuse me of racism.

It is also an appeal to the "white man's" guilt which is a form of the behaviour you earlier described as racism.

I am an anti-racist & anti-sexist;

Following on from his first racist statement he has now shown he is a hypocrite.

I was going to go on but the mood I'm in tonight I'd probably better not since his posturing is making me feel nauseas as I re-read it.

My rule of thumb is simple: if it becomes a 40-hour-a-week job just being your race/ethnicity/religion/orientation, then you are most likely an insufferable pain in the nether regions.

This particular fellow violates all of the above. I expect to see the Brigade of Allah's Holy Leiderhosen (or whoever they are) surrendering to coalition troops within the next 72 hours, just to get away from these douchebags.

[Darat]

All of this strikes me as a tortured attempt to avoid culpability for effecting the breakdown in social order that allowed these kidnappings (and subsequent beheadings) to occur. The people directly responsible are reprehensible, but we cannot avoid indirect responsibility for what is happening in Iraq. Where the 'ultimate' blame lies, I cannot say--but remove any part of the puzzle (the US invasion, the peacenik presence, the Iraqi kidnappers) and these crimes wouldn't be being commited.

If we take this absolutist view of moral responsibilty, we have no justification left for continued occupation. It would then be the responsibility of the Iraqis to do what is right, and if they don't manage to create a better society, who are we to treat them as moral children incapable of achieving that goal? It's awfully suspect to admit extenuating circumstances on the one hand (that the climate of fear under Saddam prevented Iraqis from doing what was right) and to dismiss it on the other.

You may be surprised from my posts in this thread but I agree with a lot you have said, I do think it is the Iraqi's responsibility to deal with their problems. And that is happening more and more. What is often forgotten is that other countries in the region have a great interesting de-stabilising Iraq. (Give Iran a choice between destruction of Iraq and the destruction of Israel and they'd have a nervous breakdown trying to decide.)

At the moment the majority of the violence is either Iraqis killing other Iraqis or other terrorist groups killing Iraqis. The coalition troops are killing very few people and very few of them are being killed. What we are seeing is really an externally agitated civil war. Which should not surprise us. Iraq is an "artificial" country as it is now constituted and probably should be radically reformed (Kurds forming their country for example) However again outside influences as well as internal ones don't want that to happen.

Also a question I often ask, would Iraq be much different today if Saddam had been killed or had died 3 years ago?

[Mycroft]

I do completely agree that the US Government is not responsible for these kidnappings. I also agree that no one forced these kidnappers to... well kidnap these people. I just don't agree that the people who were kidnapped had it coming to them.


Maybe I don't either, but then I don't believe people who throw rocks at a hornet nest "deserve" to be stung either. It's just a natural consequence of their actions and has nothing to do with what they "deserve" or not.

[mumblethrax]

By the definitions organisations like Amnesty International use kidnappings and brutal forms of murder dressed up as executions were common under Saddam.

You are right mind you - if Saddam was still in power these kidnappings wouldn't have happened but others would have done.
It's notoriously difficult to get accurate numbers here, but if all that we've accomplished in Iraq is that a different lot have been tortured and murdered than otherwise would have been, and tens of thousands have died in the name of that zero sum game, then I would have to say we've not done well.

But I don't particularly want to have that conversation. I think you're right, Iraqi society under Saddam was brutal and strange. And that's precisely the problem: people raised in such an environment cannot be expected to undergo some kind of moral transformation after two years or so of reflection. So, yes, Iraqis are likely to be morally stunted, and it's hardly surprising that they are. Neither is it racist to have lower expectations of a society which has no recent history that might lead it to this kind of awakening.

[Mycroft]

Since there is nothing in that bio which a reasonable person suggests "Pansey assed self loathing scum", I'll stick to my orginal comment.

Why the childish name calling?

Pansey assed:

I am a white, middle class, queer American male.

I am a political vegan.

I try not to create economic demand for products that are violent & exploitative to people, animals, or the earth.

I'll eat anything I find in a dumpster or is offered by a host.

Self-loathing:

I seek to dismantle my racist patriarchal privilege & end my oppressive behaviors.

I was raised Catholic, but I consider myself independently spiritual because organized religion was designed to divide & oppress.

I am an anarchist; I seek to tear down hierarchies in my personal interactions, organizing structures, & society at large.

I am a revolutionary; this US-dominated global capitalist system is inherently flawed & I aim to help accelerate its inevitable collapse & create a truly sustainable & egalitarian society.

‘Nuff said?

[Darat]

It's notoriously difficult to get accurate numbers here, but if all that we've accomplished in Iraq is that a different lot have been tortured and murdered than otherwise would have been, and tens of thousands have died in the name of that zero sum game, then I would have to say we've not done well.

...snip...

Just on this point.

Something I've raised several times before but it does seem to keep getting swept under the carpet.

Remember when the sanctions were imposed? Well we regularly heard figures of "500,000 children have died as result of the sanctions". (I'll ignore the fact that we now know that even if just the money Saddam bribed Australian, UK and USA firms with had been used for those children they could have been fed and provided with medication 10 times over.)

Presumably those deaths are no longer happening so even the worse case figures I've heard bandied about e.g .250,000 Iraqis dead as a result of the invasion is significantly less then just the figure of the children alone that were dying totally unnecessarily under Saddam.

[bob_kark]

Maybe I don't either, but then I don't believe people who throw rocks at a hornet nest "deserve" to be stung either. It's just a natural consequence of their actions and has nothing to do with what they "deserve" or not.

Well, your example gives a deliberate act of aggression. These people appear to have acutally tried to help the Iraqis. Maybe they're misguided, but it doesn't seem that they had an ulterior motive. This is why I don't understand a lot of the hostility towards them.

[mumblethrax]

Something I've raised several times before but it does seem to keep getting swept under the carpet.

Remember when the sanctions were imposed? Well we regularly heard figures of "500,000 children have died as result of the sanctions". (I'll ignore the fact that we now know that even if just the money Saddam bribed Australian, UK and USA firms with had been used for those children they could have been fed and provided with medication 10 times over.)

Presumably those deaths are no longer happening so even the worse case figures I've heard bandied about e.g .250,000 Iraqis dead as a result of the invasion is significantly less then just the figure of the children alone that were dying totally unnecessarily under Saddam.
Two problems here:

First, for what period is the 500,000 figure? Unicef gave a contemporary figure of 4,000 children under the age of five per month in 1999, and about 500,000 dead until that point. If the 250,000 figure is correct for the war, those people have died after two and a half years. So the latter rate eclipses the former handily (excluding other sources of death and suffering, which we would also have to account for).

Second, and more importantly, this sets up a false dilemma. It's possible that we would have been wrong to continue imposing sanctions, and that we were wrong to invade. It's not hard to imagine some third course of action which might have been more successful in mitigating harm done to Iraqis.

[Ed]

Two problems here:

Second, and more importantly, this sets up a false dilemma. It's possible that we would have been wrong to continue imposing sanctions, and that we were wrong to invade. It's not hard to imagine some third course of action which might have been more successful in mitigating harm done to Iraqis.

What, pray tell, is the third course?

[malha111]

I, as a opponent of the occupation of Iraq and a supporter of the Iraqi resistance, must say that I'm not very upset over the kidnapping – because they had it coming. If you are an American – the same nationality as the occupiers – you shouldn't count on going safe on the streets of Iraqi cities.

[Ed]

I, as a opponent of the occupation of Iraq and a supporter of the Iraqi resistance, must say that I'm not very upset over the kidnapping – because they had it coming. If you are an American – the same nationality as the occupiers – you shouldn't count on going safe on the streets of Iraqi cities.


And they are Crusaders, right?

Oh, and welcome. I cannot express my happiness at your joining us on this thread.

[mumblethrax]

What, pray tell, is the third course?
I can think of three or four off the top of my head.

The most expedient, with regard to ensuring the well-being of children, would have been to offer to conditionally lift sanctions in exchange for periodic monitoring by Unicef to ensure that Iraqi children would receive adequate care.

[malha111]

Crusaders, no. Pretty similar to the occupants, yes.

In a war and occupation, if you´re from the occypying nation – even if you're peace loving anarcho hippie-pacifist – I´d say it's pretty damn stupid to think that the occupied in any way would consider you diffrent from the vast majority of you're fellow countrymen (read soldiers and mercenarys) present in the occupied nation.

[Ed]

I can think of three or four off the top of my head.

The most expedient, with regard to ensuring the well-being of children, would have been to offer to conditionally lift sanctions in exchange for periodic monitoring by Unicef to ensure that Iraqi children would receive adequate care.


And his weapons programs? He was not being sanctioned to hurt children.

[malha111]

Well couldn't the sanctions at least have been dropped when the weapon programmes were scrapped?

[Ed]

Well couldn't the sanctions at least have been dropped when the weapon programmes were scrapped?

And we know that how?

[malha111]

Because the UN-observers said so?

Anyway, I should'nt be discussing this because almost all of my sources is in Swedish and I'm not able to translate them or find them in English.

(Edit: But the main reason I'm dropping this is because it's the middle of the night here in Sweden, and I have some job to do tomorrow. G'night!)

[mumblethrax]

And his weapons programs? He was not being sanctioned to hurt children.
The one that didn't exist? I imagine that rational people would have come to the correct conclusion after a few more months of weapons inspections, at which point we could have discussed conditionally lifting sanctions. The sanctions may not have been intended to harm children, but they were certainly having that effect.

[ysabella]

Yeah, sanctions don't work very well. The US should stop being dumb about those.

Regarding UN weapons inspections, first of all, they never ever said Iraq had scrapped all weapons programs. They said Iraq wasn't cooperating. Feel free to prove your assertion there.
It was always Iraq's job to divest itself completely of all weapons programs and it was Iraq's job to prove they had done so. Not the UN's or anybody else's job to prove Iraq had no weapons - Iraq's job to prove it to the world, or at least all the signatories. Iraq never even tried, and barely cooperated (only when the US and UK rattled the saber).
Sanctions did not block food or medicines by the way. The resolution excepted "medical supplies, foodstuffs, and other items of humanitarian need" and of course later the oil-for-food program went into place. As we know there was corruption but there certainly was a flow of goods and money.

Meanwhile, Saddam nearly eradicated the Marsh Arabs (http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq012503.htm) to drain the swamps out for easier access to the Majnoon oil fields, which rights were sold to TotalFinaElf. They were all displaced, a special group of people that had lived in that spot for so long that nobody actually knows (the guess is 5000 years), and they were driven out, many of them openly murdered, "disappeared," etc. But since that wasn't the US, of course it doesn't count. Not evil, and not "blood for oil." No idealist peaceniks volunteering to be human shields there, that I know of.

Anyway, topic. CPT doesn't say anything about reporting abusive acts by Iraqi insurgents. Not sure what that means. Anyway, reading their web site, they seem quite interesting in sending their members into life-threatening situations, so for them this is a success.

[kimiko]

How is it "pansy assed" to avoid meat or fur or cheap silk or diamonds or any other products whose purchase entails suffering? Is it only decent to avoid fur if you find it ugly? Or to avoid meat if you don't like the way it tastes? Or avoid diamonds and silk only if they're more expensive than you feel you should spend on clothes and jewelry?

[Euromutt]

First, for what period is the 500,000 figure? Unicef gave a contemporary figure of 4,000 children under the age of five per month in 1999, and about 500,000 dead until that point.The problem with that figure is that it actually came from the Iraqi ministry of health, and Unicef was never allowed to verify it. Unicef reported it because they had nothing else, and appended the necessary caveats, but those were happily ignored by people looking for a stick with which to beat the US. Given the Ba'athi regime's record of truthfulness, I'm not inclined to believe that figure for an instant.
If the 250,000 figure is correct for the war, those people have died after two and a half years.Where the Sam Hill did that number come from? The highest, and much-bruited, estimate was 100,000 Iraqi dead, and that was based on highly questionable extrapolations. The rough estimate most media sources seem to more or less accept between 30,000 and 35,000 Iraqi non-combatant casualties since 19-Mar-2003, and at least half of those are ascribed to insurgent/jihadist activity, rather than to Coalition military action.

So, are you saying that your initial comment about them being Crusaders and deserving whatever happens to them was just a sarcastic remark? If not, I don't understand how this supports your position.Sorry, but have you been living under a rock for the past decade? The usage of the term "Crusader" to describe anyone from countries which are predominantly white and (formerly) Christian, along with the term "Zionist" to describe any Jew, is standard hard-line Islamist rhetoric, commonly found in press releases by al-Qaeda or any of the foreign jihadists currently operating in Iraq.

All of this strikes me as a tortured attempt to avoid culpability for effecting the breakdown in social order that allowed these kidnappings (and subsequent beheadings) to occur.I don't accept that. I worked for the ICTY (the UN's "Yugoslavia tribunal") for over three years, and if there's one conviction I hold based on that experience, it is that ultimately it is a killer's own choice whether or not to pull a trigger, swing a machete, etc. The Srebrenica massacres, for example, did not happen because UNPROFOR failed to deter the Serbs, or because the Bosniaks failed to demilitarize the enclave; the massacres occurred because the Serbs decided to murder every adult male in the enclave they could.

Incidentally, I thoroughly recommend reading Kanan Makiya's book Republic of Fear. Makiya quotes a passage from a New York Times article by Youssef Ibrahim from 1994:"People are terrified of what they see," said one Iraqi intellectual residing in Baghdad, who insisted on remaining anonymous. "If the regime falls, you can imagine the chaos that will result, with the poor attacking the less poor. Nearly everyone here has arms, and the country is slipping into chaos. Sometimes I think the regime encourages the idea of a breakdown. It's like saying, 'See what could happen?' if they were no longer around."Makiya also quotes the document "Charter 91," written by some four hundred Iraqis in exile:Civil Society in Iraq has been continuously violated by the state in the name of ideology. As a consequence the networks through which civility is normally produced and reproduced have been destroyed. A collapse of values in Iraq has therefore coincided with the destruction of the public realm for uncoerced human association. In these conditions, the first task of a new politics is to reject barbarism and reconstitute civility.According to Iraqi newpapers, thirty-six thousand cars were stolen in Iraq in 1993, many in broad daylight on the streets of Baghdad. Despite being one of the most restrictive police states in the world, the Ba'athi regime was powerless to stop this. So even if you contend that collapse in social order to some extent explains (not even necessarily justifies) hostage-taking, the collapse of social order in Iraqi is not something that happened solely because of the invasion.

In short, trying to place any blame, directly or indirectly, on the US government for these kidnappings is tendentious hogwash.

[mumblethrax]

The problem with that figure is that it actually came from the Iraqi ministry of health, and Unicef was never allowed to verify it. Unicef reported it because they had nothing else, and appended the necessary caveats, but those were happily ignored by people looking for a stick with which to beat the US. Given the Ba'athi regime's record of truthfulness, I'm not inclined to believe that figure for an instant.
I agree, and I questioned it at the time. Still, the fact that three high-ranking UN officials resigned in rapid succession in protest of what they saw as a humanitarian crisis is enough to give me pause.

Where the Sam Hill did that number come from? The highest, and much-bruited, estimate was 100,000 Iraqi dead, and that was based on highly questionable extrapolations. The rough estimate most media sources seem to more or less accept between 30,000 and 35,000 Iraqi non-combatant casualties since 19-Mar-2003, and at least half of those are ascribed to insurgent/jihadist activity, rather than to Coalition military action.
It's Darat's figure, I don't know where it came from. The only halfway rigorous attempt to count the dead in Iraq I know of is Iraq Body Count, and they're only attempting to count those killed as a direct result of fighting.

I don't accept that. I worked for the ICTY (the UN's "Yugoslavia tribunal") for over three years, and if there's one conviction I hold based on that experience, it is that ultimately it is a killer's own choice whether or not to pull a trigger, swing a machete, etc. The Srebrenica massacres, for example, did not happen because UNPROFOR failed to deter the Serbs, or because the Bosniaks failed to demilitarize the enclave; the massacres occurred because the Serbs decided to murder every adult male in the enclave they could.
I take the position that whenever we act in a way that leads to negative consequences, we bear responsibilty for those consequences. We can be reasonably sure that Iraq would be a different disaster today had we not invaded, and to the extent that it is now a greater disaster than it would have otherwise been, we are culpable for making matters worse.

According to Iraqi newpapers, thirty-six thousand cars were stolen in Iraq in 1993, many in broad daylight on the streets of Baghdad. Despite being one of the most restrictive police states in the world, the Ba'athi regime was powerless to stop this. So even if you contend that collapse in social order to some extent explains (not even necessarily justifies) hostage-taking, the collapse of social order in Iraqi is not something that happened solely because of the invasion.
It's a long trip from grand theft auto to kidnappings and beheadings, civil war and suicide bombing. The 36,000 figure is vanishingly small in comparison to contemporary rates in the US, and I don't really know how to adjust for brutality.

But if civil society had been so greatly eroded that deposing the sitting regime would necessarily lead to this kind of anarchy, it only underscores how foolhardy it was to invade with the sole purpose of doing just that.

In short, trying to place any blame, directly or indirectly, on the US government for these kidnappings is tendentious hogwash.
I don't think you've made that case. Is it not reasonable to believe that these kidnappings and beheadings would not be happening if we had not invaded Iraq? If it is, how can we possibly argue that we are not indirectly responsible?

[Euromutt]

Is it not reasonable to believe that these kidnappings and beheadings would not be happening if we had not invaded Iraq? If it is, how can we possibly argue that we are not indirectly responsible?If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, the Bosniak males who were murdered at Srebrenica bore partial responsibility for their own killing. After all, if they hadn't been living in eastern Bosnia in the first place, the Serbs wouldn't have had to murder them.

[jay gw]

Christians being stupid. Wow. What news.

[Dr Adequate]

Maybe I don't either, but then I don't believe people who throw rocks at a hornet nest "deserve" to be stung either. It's just a natural consequence of their actions and has nothing to do with what they "deserve" or not. 'Scuse me. According to the magical method you and your pals have invented for indentifying racism... doesn't that count?

"What you're basically saying is that Iraqis are mindless animals who HAD to kidnap peace activists, thank you for admittting your racist bigotry, etc, etc." You know the words, you've sung the tune often enough.

The fact that what you actually said was true and unobjectionable is not, IIRC, considered a defense against such a charge.

So shouldn't you be vilifying yourself for being a racist bigot? Shouldn't your comrades in your relentless struggle against this form of "racism" also have a thing or two to say?

Or does your method of racism-detection only work on people you disagree with --- you know, the sort of "pansy-assed scum" (mmm ... love that queerbashing rhetoric) who are "racist" enough to hold the US and UK responsible for a conflict which they initiated?

[David Swidler]

Christians being stupid. Wow. What news.

Considering that Christians are people (last I checked), and people are stupid, that's hardly a profound observation. Can you point to any group that hasn't done something boneheaded?

Except JREF posters. We're all infallible.

[mumblethrax]

If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, the Bosniak males who were murdered at Srebrenica bore partial responsibility for their own killing. After all, if they hadn't been living in eastern Bosnia in the first place, the Serbs wouldn't have had to murder them.
No one can be expected to act to prevent an outcome they cannot reasonably predict, so no, simply living in eastern Bosnia would not be sufficient to assign some sliver of responsibility there.

This is not the case with our involvement in Iraq. We did have reliable information that should have influenced our actions, and I think that information was ignored out of ideological zeal. We were going to invade Iraq, consequences be damned.

[Mephisto]

This is not the case with our involvement in Iraq. We did have reliable information that should have influenced our actions, and I think that information was ignored out of ideological zeal. We were going to invade Iraq, consequences be damned.

I agree with you 100% - and now WE'RE damned for ignoring the consequences.

[Jocko]

Christians being stupid. Wow. What news.

No more so than you making some boneheaded generalization. Happens almost daily, in fact.

[Mycroft]

'Scuse me. According to the magical method you and your pals have invented for indentifying racism... doesn't that count?


No, sorry, don't follow you.

Edited to add:

After reviewing your post again, I think I get the point you're trying to make.

Holding the "peace activists" responsible for their own actions is not at all the same as saying the Jihadis are not responsible for their actions.

[Mark]

No more so than you making some boneheaded generalization. Happens almost daily, in fact.

Stones and glass houses?

Jocko on Canadians:
Another thing about Canadians... apart from having no sense of humor, they also seem to confuse themselves with proper ethnic groups. Apart from your Frenchified population, you guys are about as distinct as North Dakotans are from South Dakotans.http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=43951&page=2&highlight=Jocko+liberals
:)

[Jocko]

Stones and glass houses?

Jocko on Canadians:
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=43951&page=2&highlight=Jocko+liberals
:)

What, you want to hear what I think of liberals, too, smart guy? ;)

By the way, I stand by my Canadian comment, and offer Orwell as a case study.

[Mark]

What, you want to hear what I think of liberals, too, smart guy? ;)



I already know what all you people think of liberals. ;)

[Jocko]

I already know what all you people think of liberals. ;)

"All you people"? Careful, Jesse Jackson's gonna yank your ACLU card with Freudian slips like that one.

[Dr Adequate]

Holding the "peace activists" responsible for their own actions is not at all the same as saying the Jihadis are not responsible for their actions. And holding the US and UK responsible for their actions is not at all the same as saying the Jihadis are not responsible for their actions.

If you can find fault with the peace activists for being dumb enough to be there in the first place, they can blame the US and UK for starting the conflict in the first place.

A little while back someone suggested that Saddam was to blame for not proving that he had no WMDs. Well this is just racism against Americans, isn't it? That's basically saying that Americans have no free will.

But curiously enough, no-one commented on this piece of "racism", either.

But let someone dare to suggest that some dumb American action --- playing silly buggers with the Qur'aan, desecrating corpses, torturing people, invading the country on a flimsy pretext in the first place --- might serve as an incitement to terrorism and so be counterproductive --- why then suddenly suggesting the existence of cause and effect in human relationships denies the free will of the people being affected, and is racist.

[Mycroft]

But let someone dare to suggest that some dumb American action --- playing silly buggers with the Qur'aan, desecrating corpses, torturing people, invading the country on a flimsy pretext in the first place --- might serve as an incitement to terrorism and so be counterproductive --- why then suddenly suggesting the existence of cause and effect in human relationships denies the free will of the people being affected, and is racist.

The point is "playing silly buggers" with a Qu'ran shouldn't inspire terrorism in a rational person. A Muslim would be justified in taking offense, but to kill innocent people over it is such an extreme overreaction as to be barbaric to even think about it.

And yet here you are suggesting it as a legitimate reason for terrorism. What does that say about your opinion of Muslims? That you expect savage behavior from them. That if someone does something to a Qu’ran, then they’re just not responsible for what they might do anymore.

Would you use that logic talking about Christians?

Suppose somewhere in Indonesia it made the news that Muslim prison guards may have desecrated the bibles of some of their Christian prisoners. Would you be understanding if in response some Christian in London set off a bomb in a Mosque during prayers? Would you blame the Christian who did this terrible thing, or would you fault the Indonesian prison guard?

It’s not about claiming they don’t have free will. It’s assuming that given a choice, you expect them to make the savage choice.

[Dr Adequate]

The point is "playing silly buggers" with a Qu'ran shouldn't inspire terrorism in a rational person. A Muslim would be justified in taking offense, but to kill innocent people over it is such an extreme overreaction as to be barbaric to even think about it.

And yet here you are suggesting it as a legitimate reason for terrorism. What does that say about your opinion of Muslims? That you expect savage behavior from them. That if someone does something to a Qu’ran, then they’re just not responsible for what they might do anymore.

Would you use that logic talking about Christians?

Suppose somewhere in Indonesia it made the news that Muslim prison guards may have desecrated the bibles of some of their Christian prisoners. Would you be understanding if in response some Christian in London set off a bomb in a Mosque during prayers? Would you blame the Christian who did this terrible thing, or would you fault the Indonesian prison guard?

It’s not about claiming they don’t have free will. It’s assuming that given a choice, you expect them to make the savage choice.Thank you, that was an excellent demonstrating of the weaselly trash I was referring to.

Now let's look at your post in the same light.

"The point is being a peace activist in Iraq shouldn't inspire terrorism in a rational person. A Muslim would be justified in taking offense, but to kidnap and threaten to kill innocent people over it is such an extreme overreaction as to be barbaric to even think about it.

And yet here you are suggesting it as a legitimate reason for terrorism. What does that say about your opinion of Muslims? That you expect savage behavior from them. That if they can get their hands on Westerners, then they’re just not responsible for what they might do anymore.

Would you use that logic talking about Christians?

Suppose there were Muslims peace activists in Briain. Would you be understanding if in response some Christian in London kidnapped them and threatened to kill them? Would you blame the Christian who did this terrible thing, or would you fault the Muslim peace campainer?

It’s not about claiming they don’t have free will. It’s assuming that given a choice, you expect them to make the savage choice."

There you are, you see, you're a racist. I proved it with Magical Mycroftese Logic, so it must be true. Of course, I had to tell a few little fibs, and contradict myself, but then so did you.

[Elind]

In other words, the perpatrators are little more than animals, almost devoid of free will. Seems I've heard this before...
What about the hostages?:boggled:

Edited: In reading upwards instead of down, I see that other brilliant minds have already picked that bone, but what the hell..

[Elind]

If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, the Bosniak males who were murdered at Srebrenica bore partial responsibility for their own killing. After all, if they hadn't been living in eastern Bosnia in the first place, the Serbs wouldn't have had to murder them.

Not as silly as it sounds. I knew someone who was found guilty of "responsibility" for a car accident; because he was a foreigner and if he hadn't been in that country the accident wouldn't have happened.

Seriously.:eye-poppi

(Names are left out to protect the stupid)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Pansey assed:

I am a white, middle class, queer American male.


Help me out with this one. My thinking is that there is nothing "pansey assed" about being white, middle class, American or male. So you seem to be saying that a person is "pansey assed" because they are queer.


I am a political vegan.


Also that it is "pansey assed" to avoid animal products for moral reasons. Is this because eating meat is intrinsically not "pansey assed", or because holding the moral view that humans should not exploit animals unnecessarily is "pansey assed"?


I try not to create economic demand for products that are violent & exploitative to people, animals, or the earth.


Sounds responsible to me, rather than "pansey assed", but once again maybe you can explain yourself better.


I'll eat anything I find in a dumpster or is offered by a host.


This is a position I find quite bizarre, since eating found food is a health risk and eating food you find morally objectionable just to be polite seems to be a funny way of assigning priority to your moral convictions. I do not see how it is "pansey assed" though.


Self-loathing:

I seek to dismantle my racist patriarchal privilege & end my oppressive behaviors.


If he genuinely believes that he has undeserved privileges because he is white and male (wow, what a crazy belief) and that sometimes his behaviours oppress others, and he is trying to change, is that self-loathing? It seems to be that by the same logic all New Year's resolutions are similarly evidence of self-loathing.


I was raised Catholic, but I consider myself independently spiritual because organized religion was designed to divide & oppress.


How does this indicate self-loathing? Well, I suppose being raised Catholic does correlate with self-loathing, but if he is out of that environment I do not see the link.


I am an anarchist; I seek to tear down hierarchies in my personal interactions, organizing structures, & society at large.


How is it self-loathing to loathe hierarchies? I recognise their usefulness, but at the same time the human instinct to form hierarchies is often pernicious and on balance I wish more people went out of their way to subvert hierarchies when it would be good to do so.


I am a revolutionary; this US-dominated global capitalist system is inherently flawed & I aim to help accelerate its inevitable collapse & create a truly sustainable & egalitarian society.


Apart from the somewhat dubious claim about the inevitable collapse of global capitalism, what indicates self-loathing in being a revolutionary? Were the architects of the US revolt against England self-loathing, because they did not like the way their society worked and sought to accelerate what they saw as the inevitable collapse of foreign rule and replace it with a representative democracy?

edited for wat

[Mycroft]

"The point is being a peace activist in Iraq shouldn't inspire terrorism in a rational person..."

Ah, I see your problem.

You see, I never claimed they were kidnapped because they were peace activists.

It's my argument that it's the kidnapper who is responsible for the kidnapping.

[Mycroft]

Help me out with this one. My thinking is that there is nothing "pansey assed" about being white, middle class, American or male. So you seem to be saying that a person is "pansey assed" because they are queer.

Yes, Kevin. One of the definitions given for “pansy” is homosexual.

http://www.answers.com/pansy&r=67


Also that it is "pansey assed" to avoid animal products for moral reasons. Is this because eating meat is intrinsically not "pansey assed", or because holding the moral view that humans should not exploit animals unnecessarily is "pansey assed"?

Yes, yes, and yes.


Sounds responsible to me, rather than "pansey assed", but once again maybe you can explain yourself better.

I disagree. People, animals, and the Earth are to be exploited.

Now with people exploitation, we hope it’s a mutual exploitation. That in exchange for labor or intellectual work, the person is fairly compensated. With animals, we hope their exploitation is with a reasonable degree of compassion to avoid needless suffering. With the Earth…well, it’s a thing, isn’t it? As a thing we don’t need to worry about it’s suffering. Our concern there is that our exploitation is sustainable, and that our environment is protected, but we still exploit the Earth.

That’s how we create the wealth we need to live, and to live in comfort.


This is a position I find quite bizarre, since eating found food is a health risk and eating food you find morally objectionable just to be polite seems to be a funny way of assigning priority to your moral convictions. I do not see how it is "pansey assed" though.

I think making a moral conviction out of eating from a dumpster is pansy assed. I also think trashing your moral convictions just so as not to offend a stranger is also pansy assed.

I don’t know if I can explain exactly how, we may have to agree to disagree here.


If he genuinely believes that he has undeserved privileges because he is white and male (wow, what a crazy belief) and that sometimes his behaviours oppress others, and he is trying to change, is that self-loathing?

Not if he were trying to elevate others to his privileged status, no. But he’s not doing that, he’s trying to destroy his own civilization.


How does this indicate self-loathing? Well, I suppose being raised Catholic does correlate with self-loathing, but if he is out of that environment I do not see the link.

He loathes the background he comes from.


How is it self-loathing to loathe hierarchies? I recognise their usefulness, but at the same time the human instinct to form hierarchies is often pernicious and on balance I wish more people went out of their way to subvert hierarchies when it would be good to do so.

He says all hierarchies, not just the ones that would be good to subvert. Essentially, he’s against civilization.


Apart from the somewhat dubious claim about the inevitable collapse of global capitalism, what indicates self-loathing in being a revolutionary? Were the architects of the US revolt against England self-loathing, because they did not like the way their society worked and sought to accelerate what they saw as the inevitable collapse of foreign rule and replace it with a representative democracy?


Except he doesn’t have anything to replace it with, and he works against the “US-dominated global capitalist system” by supporting something worse.

That’s self-loathing.

[Dr Adequate]

It's my argument that it's the kidnapper who is responsible for the kidnapping. And it's my argument that the terrorist is responsible for the terrorism. So we're still even-steven.

But let's not be reasonable, let's "Mycroft" the situation:

"Ah, so the kidnap victims are no longer in the role of people "throwing stones into a hornets nest"? And the moral is no longer that the kidnap victims should be held "responsible for their own actions" by being kidnapped?

Your posts have been exposed as racist. Do you now wish to admit that they were also incorrect?"

Or would you like to agree with what I was actually trying to teach you: that this whole magical method of detecting racism which you and your comrades have cooked up is bogus from beginning to end? I have pointed out that your method of identifying "racism" in my posts involved untruth and self-contradiction. Would you like me to go through it with you, or do you concede the point?

[Dr Adequate]

Ah, I see your problem.

You see, I never claimed they were kidnapped because they were peace activists. Ah, I see your problem: you're going to focus on irrelevant details of the parallel I've drawn.

Feel free to substitute for "being peace activists" the phrase "being Westerners in Iraq", or whatever it was you think they did that was the equivalent of throwing a stone into a hornet's nest, for which they should take responsibility.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, Kevin. One of the definitions given for “pansy” is homosexual.

Yes, yes, and yes.

I disagree. People, animals, and the Earth are to be exploited.

I think making a moral conviction out of eating from a dumpster is pansy assed. I also think trashing your moral convictions just so as not to offend a stranger is also pansy assed.

I don’t know if I can explain exactly how, we may have to agree to disagree here.


Cheers. I was fairly certain that the use of the term "pansey assed" was intended to slur the target by associating vegetarianism and environmentalism with homosexuality, and as such said a great deal about the people using the term (and none of it good). However it is good to have my ugly suspicion confirmed.


Not if he were trying to elevate others to his privileged status, no. But he’s not doing that, he’s trying to destroy his own civilization.


False dichotomy. It wouldn't be the end of civilisation if white males had to compete on a level playing field with non-white and/or non-male people, nor is it evidence he loathes himself for happening to be white and male.

Possibly people who loathe homosexuals are projecting their loathing on to this writer and attributing it to the writer?


He loathes the background he comes from.


That is very different from loathing oneself, is it not?


He says all hierarchies, not just the ones that would be good to subvert. Essentially, he’s against civilization.


Rather he is in favour of a hypothetical non-hierarchical civilisation. Personally I go with the Jared Diamond school of economic and military determinism, so I think we will see such a civilisation only on the day when it can compete with and wipe out capitalist competitors, in much the same way that agrarian societies wiped out hunter-gatherers. In other words it's a pipe dream. However that is a difference of opinion about a factual issue, not a matter of whether or not someone loathes themselves as opposed to loathing the injustices of the modern world.


Except he doesn’t have anything to replace it with, and he works against the “US-dominated global capitalist system” by supporting something worse.

That’s self-loathing.

Again, you are attributing your own opinions about anarchism to this writer and then claiming that he must loathe himself because he supports something you loathe. Why can't he be an idiot at peace with himself and his own daft ideas about how societies might work?

[Elind]

I do find it hard not to make a joke about their predicament - damn these human emotions!

I can imagine them trying to explain to their captors that they are on their side, that they identify with their struggle and totally missing the point that the people who have kidnapped them just sees them as a useful commodity.

The common term is "useful idiots", not "commodities":rolleyes:

[Mycroft]

Ah, I see your problem: you're going to focus on irrelevant details of the parallel I've drawn.

Feel free to substitute for "being peace activists" the phrase "being Westerners in Iraq", or whatever it was you think they did that was the equivalent of throwing a stone into a hornet's nest, for which they should take responsibility.

The kidnappers were responsible for kidnapping these "peace activists", but they had the help of the activists themselves who purposefully traveled halfway around the world to join sides with the absolute most dangerous people they could. The one entity not at fault in this tragedy is the US military, who these “peace activists” blame for the tragedy they helped create.

Do you imagine a contradiction there? I don’t. There is only a contradiction if you’re so simple-minded as to imagine such a colossal cock-up can only have one entity to blame, where the truth is there is blame for the kidnappers and these “peace activists.”

These activists were stupid. They played with fire and got burnt. They disturbed the hornet’s nest and thought they would be safe because they expected the hornets to understand they had a common enemy and were thus allies.

But these jihadists are not allies to uber-liberal gay-positive vegan anti-imperialist anti-racist anti-sexist anti-religious anti-hierarchal pro-egalitarian anti-war anti-violent anarchists. Why? Because the jihadists are uber-conservative gay-hostile meat-eating pro-imperialist (so long as it’s their own empire) pro-racist pro-sexist pro-religious pro-hierarchal anti-egalitarian pro-war pro-violence noy-cases who don’t give a rat’s ass about the wonderful principles of anarchism.

Pointing out that these groups are not natural allies is not the racism of lower expectations, it’s just a recognition of reality. These activists got in trouble because all they see in these jihadists is another group that hates western civilization and the United States as much as they do, and they think that’s enough to overcome being diametric opposites.

[Mycroft]

Cheers. I was fairly certain that the use of the term "pansey assed" was intended to slur the target by associating vegetarianism and environmentalism with homosexuality, and as such said a great deal about the people using the term (and none of it good). However it is good to have my ugly suspicion confirmed.

Do you think homosexuality is a bad thing such that vegetarians and environmentalists who are associated with them are slurred?!


False dichotomy. It wouldn't be the end of civilisation if white males had to compete on a level playing field with non-white and/or non-male people, nor is it evidence he loathes himself for happening to be white and male.

I’m all for non-whites and females competing on a level playing field. I’m just not in favor of some anarchists working for the destruction of that playing field just because they internalize every imperfection of their culture both modern and historical while being simultaneously too immature to take direction from someone smarter and more experienced than they are. Hierarchal structures? Get real, they’re just mad that mom and dad still expect them to do something useful with their lives.

No, I don’t think equality among the sexes and races is a threat to civilization, I think the guy who talks about violent revolution while allying himself with violent misogynist jihadists is.


That is very different from loathing oneself, is it not?

How so?


Rather he is in favour of a hypothetical non-hierarchical civilization...

Right. Which makes him against the civilization we have. Particularly when he allies himself with violent misogynist jihadists and talks about violent revolution.


Personally I go with the Jared Diamond school of economic and military determinism, so I think we will see such a civilisation only on the day when it can compete with and wipe out capitalist competitors, in much the same way that agrarian societies wiped out hunter-gatherers. In other words it's a pipe dream.

In other words, you see he’s an idiot too.


Again, you are attributing your own opinions about anarchism to this writer and then claiming that he must loathe himself because he supports something you loathe. Why can't he be an idiot at peace with himself and his own daft ideas about how societies might work?

Because what he supports is diametrically opposed to him. That’s self-loathing.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Do you think homosexuality is a bad thing such that vegetarians and environmentalists who are associated with them are slurred?!


No, but I think that is the opinion that the expression "pansey assed" used in this context is meant to convey.


Hierarchal structures? Get real, they’re just mad that mom and dad still expect them to do something useful with their lives.


You are not a mind reader.


No, I don’t think equality among the sexes and races is a threat to civilization, I think the guy who talks about violent revolution while allying himself with violent misogynist jihadists is.


"Pansey assed" violent revolution?


How so?


If one loathes catholics and is a catholic, then one probably experiences self-loathing if one is consistent. If one loathes catholics and so stops being a catholic, then one probably does not experience self-loathing if one is consistent.


Right. Which makes him against the civilization we have. Particularly when he allies himself with violent misogynist jihadists and talks about violent revolution.


From his point of view the jihadists are probably an inevitable byproduct of the civilisation we have.


In other words, you see he’s an idiot too.


Absolutely. I am mostly interested in why certain posters here think it is tolerable behaviour to attribute the qualities of self-loathing and being "pansey assed" to this person. I am certainly not defending their views which seem to me to vary from arguably laudable to straightforwardly foolish.


Because what he supports is diametrically opposed to him. That’s self-loathing.

I don't see it. How is what he supports "diametrically opposed to him"?

[Mycroft]

No, but I think that is the opinion that the expression "pansey assed" used in this context is meant to convey.

I think you’re reading too much into it.


You are not a mind reader.

I don’t need to be.

"Pansey assed" violent revolution?

We’ve already agreed he’s an idiot. Idiots don’t need to be consistent. For example, he’s a queer male who’s against the male dominated hierarchy who supports militant Islamic jihadists who would create male dominated hierarchies given the chance.


If one loathes catholics and is a catholic, then one probably experiences self-loathing if one is consistent. If one loathes catholics and so stops being a catholic, then one probably does not experience self-loathing if one is consistent.

If one loathes Catholics and so stops being a Catholic but then goes and lends his support to someone else who is not only worse in every way in all the reasons he loathed Catholics but would also work to destroy his own civilization…then he has serious mental issues, one of which being self-loathing.

You see, the problem here is you keep looking at this in itty bitty pieces, while I’m looking at the larger picture. Lot’s of people stop being Catholics (or whatever) who are not self-loathing, but they don’t then go forward and work to undermine their civilization.


From his point of view the jihadists are probably an inevitable byproduct of the civilisation we have.

No doubt, which supports my assertion that he’s against Western Civilization.


Absolutely. I am mostly interested in why certain posters here think it is tolerable behaviour to attribute the qualities of self-loathing and being "pansey assed" to this person. I am certainly not defending their views which seem to me to vary from arguably laudable to straightforwardly foolish.

Well, I think we’ve demonstrated both pansy assed and self-loathing. What do you think?


I don't see it. How is what he supports "diametrically opposed to him"?

Because these jihadists are not allies to uber-liberal gay-positive vegan anti-imperialist anti-racist anti-sexist anti-religious anti-hierarchal pro-egalitarian anti-war anti-violent anarchists. Why? Because the jihadists are uber-conservative gay-hostile meat-eating pro-imperialist (so long as it’s their own empire) pro-racist pro-sexist pro-religious pro-hierarchal anti-egalitarian pro-war pro-violence nut-cases who don’t give a rat’s ass about the wonderful principles of anarchism.

[Dr Adequate]

Do you imagine a contradiction there? I don’t. There is only a contradiction if you’re so simple-minded as to imagine such a colossal cock-up can only have one entity to blame, where the truth is there is blame for the kidnappers and these “peace activists.” You find my argument "simple minded"? So do I. This is because I constructed it by taking your magical argument for why I must be racist and changing a few words so that it applied to you.

Curiously, you are now able to see that the argument is simple-minded, and why, when it's applied to you, while gaining, apparently, no insight whatsoever into the reasons why it's simple minded when you apply it to other people.

So let's see if I can explain it to you... in your own words... nearly:

Do you imagine a contradiction there? I don’t. There is only a contradiction if you’re so simple-minded as to imagine such a colossal cock-up can only have one entity to blame, where the truth is there is blame for the terrorists and these “liberators.”

The US forces were stupid. They played with fire and got burnt. They disturbed the hornet’s nest and thought they would be safe because they expected the hornets to understand they had a common enemy and were thus allies.

Pointing out that these groups are not natural allies is not the racism of lower expectations, it’s just a recognition of reality. These US got in trouble because all they saw in Iraqis is another group that hated Saddam as much as they do, and they think that’s enough to overcome being diametric opposites.

[Dr Adequate]

"Pansey assed" violent revolution? The very worst kind.

[Mycroft]

You find my argument "simple minded"? So do I. This is because I constructed it by taking your magical argument for why I must be racist and changing a few words so that it applied to you.

Apples and oranges.

The racism of lowered expectations is where you don’t hold people responsible for their own actions, but instead describe it as the inevitable result of someone else’s actions. For example, claiming that the kidnapping of the Christian Peace Group members is not the responsibility of the kidnappers, but of the US military, as though the kidnappers are incapable of making other choices.

By contrast, criticism of the Christian Peace Group members who were kidnapped as well as criticism of the kidnappers themselves is based on the fact that they each had many other choices, and chose the bad ones.


Curiously, you are now able to see that the argument is simple-minded, and why, when it's applied to you, while gaining, apparently, no insight whatsoever into the reasons why it's simple minded when you apply it to other people.

Perhaps it seems simplistic when you turn it around because it doesn’t make sense that way. For example:


So let's see if I can explain it to you... in your own words... nearly:

Yes, let’s look at how you doctored my words;

”Do you imagine a contradiction there? I don’t. There is only a contradiction if you’re so simple-minded as to imagine such a colossal cock-up can only have one entity to blame, where the truth is there is blame for the terrorists and these “liberators.

The US forces were stupid. They played with fire and got burnt. They disturbed the hornet’s nest and thought they would be safe because they expected the hornets to understand they had a common enemy and were thus allies. ”

For starters, it’s something of a stretch to say the US forces got “burnt.” 2K dead out of about 150k over more than two years is an astonishingly low number, and the soldiers took the very same risks they were trained to take.

”Pointing out that these groups are not natural allies is not the racism of lower expectations, it’s just a recognition of reality. These US got in trouble because all they saw in Iraqis is another group that hated Saddam as much as they do, and they think that’s enough to overcome being diametric opposites.”

Except the coalition forces are natural allies to the eight million Iraqis who voted as well as the fledgling elected Iraqi government. The US forced didn’t go over there with the expectation that they would be friends with the Bathists and the Jihadists.

So yeah, when you modify my words, plugging in different groups, they don’t make sense.

[hammegk]

... I've got to admire them for sticking to their guns-
Yeah, most would be worrying about keeping their heads about them.

[Dr Adequate]

Apples and oranges.[/i] Or ... sauce for the gander?
The racism of lowered expectations is where you don’t hold people responsible for their own actions, but instead describe it as the inevitable result of someone else’s actions. For example, claiming that the kidnapping of the Christian Peace Group members is not the responsibility of the kidnappers, but of the US military, as though the kidnappers are incapable of making other choices.

By contrast, criticism of the Christian Peace Group members who were kidnapped as well as criticism of the kidnappers themselves is based on the fact that they each had many other choices, and chose the bad ones. Or to put it another way:

Nearly but not quite posted by mycroft:
The racism of lowered expectations is where you don’t hold people responsible for their own actions, but instead describe it as the inevitable result of someone else’s actions. For example, claiming that the kidnapping of the Christian Peace Group members is not the responsibility of the kidnappers, but of the Christian Peace Group, as though the kidnappers are incapable of making other choices.

By contrast, criticism of the US military as well as criticism of the terrorists themselves is based on the fact that they each had many other choices, and chose the bad ones. Now then: For starters, it’s something of a stretch to say the US forces got “burnt.” 2K dead out of about 150k over more than two years is an astonishingly low number, and the soldiers took the very same risks they were trained to take. Well, what proportion of peace activists get kidnapped?Except the coalition forces are natural allies to the eight million Iraqis who voted... I'm afraid that remains to be demonstrated. To rely of it as being true is just the fallacy that you (and then I, recycling your words) identified. The US wanted them to have the vote. Given the vote, they exercised it, so you could argue that in that sense, they wanted the vote (though this will not always follow) and therefore have one interest in common with the US. But does that make them your natural allies?

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think you’re reading too much into it.


If it's not a term implying homosexuality being used as an insult, what is it then?


We’ve already agreed he’s an idiot. Idiots don’t need to be consistent. For example, he’s a queer male who’s against the male dominated hierarchy who supports militant Islamic jihadists who would create male dominated hierarchies given the chance.


It's that weasel word "support" beloved of the US right that is the problem here. As your own nation's history shows it is perfectly possible to support all kinds of thoroughly evil people with completely different values to oneself.


If one loathes Catholics and so stops being a Catholic but then goes and lends his support to someone else who is not only worse in every way in all the reasons he loathed Catholics but would also work to destroy his own civilization…then he has serious mental issues, one of which being self-loathing.


Projection again. You see Middle Eastern militants as being worse than catholics, so you project this on to the writer, then you conclude that he must loathe himself because you loathe him. It's transparently irrational.


You see, the problem here is you keep looking at this in itty bitty pieces, while I’m looking at the larger picture. Lot’s of people stop being Catholics (or whatever) who are not self-loathing, but they don’t then go forward and work to undermine their civilization.


That's a useful bit of sophistry. If I rebut your argument in every detail, I'm still wrong because I'm looking at it in itty bitty pieces.


No doubt, which supports my assertion that he’s against Western Civilization.


Perhaps like that self-loathing "pansey ass" Ghandi he rather thinks that Western Civilisation would be an excellent idea.


Well, I think we’ve demonstrated both pansy assed and self-loathing. What do you think?


I think you are projecting.

[Mycroft]

Or ... sauce for the gander?
Or to put it another way:

Nearly but not quite posted by mycroft:
Now then: Well, what proportion of peace activists get kidnapped? I'm afraid that remains to be demonstrated. To rely of it as being true is just the fallacy that you (and then I, recycling your words) identified. The US wanted them to have the vote. Given the vote, they exercised it, so you could argue that in that sense, they wanted the vote (though this will not always follow) and therefore have one interest in common with the US. But does that make them your natural allies?

I've read through this three times and can't parse it into anything sensible. If you want to re-write for clarity, I'll be more than happy to respond.

[Dr Adequate]

Very well. There is an old saying "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". This means that what applies to one thing applies to a similar thing. I am demonstating this by using your arguments that I am a racist to prove that you are, and your arguments that you aren't to prove that I am not. You are right to find your arguments almost meaningless. On this we are in agreement. It's just that they happen to be meaningless when you use them too.

[clarsct]

"Once more into the breaches, lads"

Bah.

If you go into a bad neighborhood, that has a reputation for JUST THAT, and you get mugged.

Now.

The mugger is wholly in the wrong. Let's set that as a baseline and move from there. I don't care if he's black, latino, white, or pink with purple polka dots. He's in the wrong.

Any disagreement?


Ok.

So, assuming no disagreement, which may not be the best course of action in this forum, but I'm going to go ahead anyway, for the sake of brevity.

Why did the mugee go into that area, knowing what they knew? First we must assume they knew it was a bad neighborhood.

For our anaology, I think that you would have to be dumb, deaf and blind to not realize that Iraq makes the WORST US neighborhood look like Mr. Roger's.

So I assume they knew it was a bad situation.

Ok, good. So, why were they there? To support the Iraqis. Ok, back to our hypothetical.

You're in that neighborhood to support a positive change. So how do you do so? Do you develop land in such a way as to give people jobs? Hmmmmm. Nope. Too easy. Do you do your part to try to clean up on the worst properties. Nope. Too easy. Do you try to help individuals get out of their horrid situations? Nope. Too easy. You walk around and carry signs! Yeah!

And you wonder why:
a) no one takes you seriously
b) the very people you are trying to help would find you patronizing at the least
c) when people lack respect for you, they lack respect for your wellbeing and property, as well.
d) the rest of us think you have all the brains god gave a retarded ant.

Mind you, we have all agreed that the mugger is in the wrong, here!

But it still wasn't too bright of a move on the part of the muggees.

As for Mycroft's opinions, they are just that: opinions. Why do you like or dislike strawberries? Now provide evidence and justify your position.

I could rip apart anything you say, had I half a mind. Mainly because it is an opinion, and therefore not based on logic.

Any questions?

[Mycroft]

If it's not a term implying homosexuality being used as an insult, what is it then?

Pansy assed can also mean submissive, apologetic. It may only be a coincidence that the person whom it described is also a homosexual.


It's that weasel word "support" beloved of the US right that is the problem here. As your own nation's history shows it is perfectly possible to support all kinds of thoroughly evil people with completely different values to oneself.

And what’s your opinion of the US when the US has done that?


Projection again. You see Middle Eastern militants as being worse than catholics, so you project this on to the writer, then you conclude that he must loathe himself because you loathe him. It's transparently irrational.

I call him self-loathing because he engages in self-destructive behavior. That is, he works for the destruction of the very civilization that protects him and allows him to exist. (although the mind-reading act is amusing.)

And don’t forget he eats from dumpsters. If that isn’t self-loathing, I don’t know what is.


That's a useful bit of sophistry. If I rebut your argument in every detail, I'm still wrong because I'm looking at it in itty bitty pieces.

You look at each one of those itty bitty pieces as say that piece alone doesn’t prove my case, and ignore that evidence may be cumulative.


Perhaps like that self-loathing "pansey ass" Ghandi he rather thinks that Western Civilisation would be an excellent idea.

I don’t know what you think Ghandi has to do with it, but his own words mark him as being anti-civilization:

”… I am a revolutionary; this US-dominated global capitalist system is inherently flawed & I aim to help accelerate its inevitable collapse…”



Well, I think we’ve demonstrated both pansy assed and self-loathing. What do you think?
I think you are projecting.

Well, we’ve got “pansy-assed” with queer. There is other evidence, but that’s just icing.

We have self-loathing with him eating out of dumpsters. Again, there is a lot more you can look at, but we have it cold with the dumpster dining.

Still don’t agree?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Unless you can come up with some new logical fallacies I think we're done.

We've established that people who use the term "pansey assed" are engaging in unpleasant bigotry, and we've established that people who use the term "self-loathing" have to engage in hilarious contortions and mind-reading games to infer self-loathing from clearly unrelated claims and issues.

What more is there to do?

[Skeptic]

If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, the Bosniak males who were murdered at Srebrenica bore partial responsibility for their own killing. After all, if they hadn't been living in eastern Bosnia in the first place, the Serbs wouldn't have had to murder them.

That would certainly be the case if the Bosniaks in question were actually living halfway around the world and deliberately flew into Srebrenica despite it being obvious to everybody it's not a hot idea, under the impression that since both they and the Serbs dislike the USA, it means the Serbs would welcome them with open arms.

The culpability in both cases would be based on the fact that they were evil people, but on the well-known fact, coming to us down from the famous story about Midas, that stupidity is as dangerous, and as culpable, as evil, if not more so.

These fools thought that being blatantly anti-American and anti-Invasion was enough for the Jihadis to like them, or at least not hurt them. Sorry guys--if you ain't (the Jihadis' brand of) a Muslim, you're an infidel that should be killed, no matter how much you dislike the USA.

[Mycroft]

Unless you can come up with some new logical fallacies I think we're done.

We've established that people who use the term "pansey assed" are engaging in unpleasant bigotry, and we've established that people who use the term "self-loathing" have to engage in hilarious contortions and mind-reading games to infer self-loathing from clearly unrelated claims and issues.

What more is there to do?

Classic, declare victory and retreat!

:dl:

Kevin, if your point is that "Pansy Assed" or other terms that could refer to homosexuals should not be used as pejoratives, I can agree with you. I’m actually struggling with that issue in my own household now as my daughter wants to refer to everything as “gay”, but fighting eighth-grader peer pressure is a tough thing. We could still argue over other interpretations of “Pansy Assed” such as effete or ineffectual, but the initial challenge was to the technical accuracy of the term, not what was implied through its use.

Self-loathing? This guy travels halfway around the world to stand with people who are violently opposed to virtually everything he stands for, and who seek to create a culture that is by orders of magnitude worse than his own. How can you honestly say it requires “mind-reading” or “contortions” to see that?

[Skeptic]

The culpability in both cases would be based on the fact that they were evil people, but on the well-known fact, coming to us down from the famous story about Midas, that stupidity is as dangerous, and as culpable, as evil, if not more so

Arggh. As the context makes clear, I meant "cupability would NOT be based on the fact that they are evil people". I mean that stupidity is sometimes as dangerous as evil, not that being stupid as the same as being evil.