What They're Teaching Saudi Kids [Archive]

SuperCoolGuy

22nd May 2006, 07:04 PM

"Undeterred by Wahhabism's historically fringe status, Saudi Arabia is trying to assert itself as the world's authoritative voice on Islam -- a sort of "Vatican" for Islam, as several Saudi officials have stated-- and these textbooks are integral to this effort."

American Muslims tend to recognize this "Vatican" effort by Saudi Arabia. The straightforward determination of religious holidays ends up being a stupid moon sighting contest that Saudi always wins since those "western" countries can't be trusted.

Technically, there should be no "Vatican" or centralized religious authority since Islam is suppose to be simple adherence to the Quran by each individual. But somebody's got to decipher the rules, I guess.

Wahhabism was something I never heard of as a muslim, yet in hindsight, the most ardent and "religious" Muslims I knew of spoke and thought along the lines of wahhabism.

Wahhabism ends up being merely Islamic bravado. The bigger a jerk you can be, the better a wahhabist.

a_unique_person

22nd May 2006, 07:14 PM

Wahhabism ends up being merely Islamic bravado. The bigger a jerk you can be, the better a wahhabist.

Sums up the exremist xians I have met, too. It's like a competition.

And Wahabism has been around in Saudi for years, it was way the Sauds hoped to keep the place a kingdom under their rule. Surprise, surprise, Wahabism preaches against overthrowing the government.

Jocko

23rd May 2006, 07:06 AM

Sums up the exremist xians I have met, too. It's like a competition.

Wow, you know, I went to Sunday school for a few years as a kid. I don't recall anything along those lines. How about you elaborate? Or is this another case of "they did it in the 14th century, therefore it's a valid tool for flimsy moral equivalency today" kind of thing?

And Wahabism has been around in Saudi for years, it was way the Sauds hoped to keep the place a kingdom under their rule. Surprise, surprise, Wahabism preaches against overthrowing the government.

So you approve of US support of the Saud family? Or would you rather see the Wahabis formally in charge (as opposed to the de facto cultural dominance they enjoy today)?

Crossbow

23rd May 2006, 08:13 AM

Just remember this next time you hear someone say that our presence in Iraq is what's creating terrorists. Nope. They're being created in first grade. And we'll never be rid of them until "our friends, the Saudis" and other Muslim governments stop breeding them.

I think that you are significantly overstating the one thing and understating the other.

School textbooks do not do all that much to influence adult actions. If that were the case, then all those years of anti-American propaganda distributed in the textbooks used by the USSR public education system would have resulted in a vast hatred of all things American in the former USSR. Never the less, the citizens of those countries threw off the Communist governments and destroyed the propaganda as soon as they could do so.

In the other case, the USA killing over 100,000 Iraqis based on a rationale that was built on lies as told by our born again Christian president has done far more to incite anti-USA violence than any group of textbooks could ever do.

Manny

23rd May 2006, 08:16 AM

BPSCG

23rd May 2006, 08:26 AM

School textbooks do not do all that much to influence adult actions. So spending 6-7 hours a day in school for 12 or so years didn't have much influence on the kind of adult you became?

What did, then?
If that were the case, then all those years of anti-American propaganda distributed in the textbooks used by the USSR public education system would have resulted in a vast hatred of all things American in the former USSR. I'm not an expert on what was in Soviet-era schoolbooks, but I'm going to guess that whatever anti-American propaganda that was in them didn't include teaching Russian kids that Americans were unclean, not to be associated with, and ultimately killed in pursuit of the True Religion. Correct me if I am mistaken.
Never the less, the citizens of those countries threw off the Communist governments No, the U.S. challenged the biggest communist state to an arms race that ultimately led to that state's collapse.

Crossbow

23rd May 2006, 08:32 AM

I wonder if people making up the number of dead out of whole cloth might be an element.

The figure used was hardly made up sir.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Minimum Max
37,848
Maximum
42,216

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

Study puts Iraqi toll at 100,000

Friday, October 29, 2004 Posted: 1:10 AM EDT (0510 GMT)

LONDON, England -- Public health experts have estimated that around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded Iraq in March last year.

...

Of course, this report is about 17 months old, so the figure of 100,000 Iraqis being killed could be much higher by now.

Ziggurat

23rd May 2006, 08:42 AM

In the other case, the USA killing over 100,000 Iraqis based on a rationale that was built on lies as told by our born again Christian president has done far more to incite anti-USA violence than any group of textbooks could ever do.

We've been over this before, Crossbow. The Lancet numbers are simply unreliable. The best sampling survey estimate for casualties due to the war is from the UN Development Program survey, which sampled over 20 times as many households and didn't skip any provinces like the Lancet study did. It arrived at a much smaller figure of around 24,000 dead (IIRC), and with much smaller error bars (the error bars on the Lancet study were so huge that they include even the lower bound of the UNDP study). So why are you still repeating outdated and inaccurate information when better information has become available since then? You're a tool, Crossbow.

Another point is that BOTH number includes civilians and combatants (terrorists, Iraqi military under Saddam, and Iraqi security forces), and also do not distinguish between Iraqis killed by coalition forces and Iraqis killed by other Iraqis.

Crossbow

23rd May 2006, 08:50 AM

So spending 6-7 hours a day in school for 12 or so years didn't have much influence on the kind of adult you became?

I do not think that it did.

At the grade school I went to we would start every day with a prayer and reciting the 'Pledge of Allegiance', my family and I went to church every week, and my father was minister. Yet I turned out be a person rather critical of the government and religion.

What did, then?

I have found that events, facts, research, experience, travel, have far, far more impact on person than does any amount propaganda regardless of who the sponsor of it may be. In my life, I have found that is also the case with most people as well.

I'm not an expert on what was in Soviet-era schoolbooks, but I'm going to guess that whatever anti-American propaganda that was in them didn't include teaching Russian kids that Americans were unclean, not to be associated with, and ultimately killed in pursuit of the True Religion. Correct me if I am mistaken.

Well, I am not an expert in Soviet-era textbooks either, but I have read several books about the USSR and for several years ALL of the textbooks had a picture of Stalin on the inside front cover. Whereas books about history and current events described how the West, religious elements, capitalists, others were out to "destroy the mother country", bring back serfdom, and turn the people into slaves in order to make money from their labors.

No, the U.S. challenged the biggest communist state to an arms race that ultimately led to that state's collapse.

Exactly so! And yet all of their vast and well-funded propaganda efforts could not change reality. I should think that would tell a person something.

zenith-nadir

23rd May 2006, 09:31 AM

From the article:

Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, has worked aggressively to spread this message. "The kingdom has reviewed all of its education practices and materials, and has removed any element that is inconsistent with the needs of a modern education," he said on a recent speaking tour to several U.S. cities. "Not only have we eliminated what might be perceived as intolerance from old textbooks that were in our system, we have implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan."

Well as we all know now and as the article stated:

These claims are not true.

The Saudis - Syrians, Iranians, Palestinians - think we in the West are as gullable as their own and would never bother to investigate something that Prince Turki al-Faisal promises up and down is not happening...They just expect us to capitulate to their "royal" decrees.

This is just another reality check when one is dealing with the Saudis...

The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."

"The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills."Sorry to disagree with some JREFers but that kind of rhetoric was never taught to me at school in Grade eight, nine or ten...or at my synagogue..or at home. To compare this rhetoric to American "patriotic songs and prose" is woo.

BPSCG

23rd May 2006, 09:41 AM

I do not think that it did.

At the grade school I went to we would start every day with a prayer and reciting the 'Pledge of Allegiance', my family and I went to church every week, and my father was minister. Yet I turned out be a person rather critical of the government and religion.So blind acceptance of religion and government is all that your tried to teach you? And you rejected it?

You started getting educated and socialized beginning at age 18?

Exactly so! And yet all of their vast and well-funded propaganda efforts could not change reality. I should think that would tell a person something.Yeah - that the masses in the Soviet Union did not "throw off the communist government," as you put it.

TriangleMan

23rd May 2006, 10:22 AM

Just for the record I now live in a Wahhabi nation (Qatar) and while it is conservative in many respects I've heard from people that it is like Amsterdam compared to Saudi Arabia. I'm not entirely sure Wahhabi is to blame here, fundmentalism in any religion appears to breed intolerance.

Some of the examples given in the article may be out of the Qu'ran; I remember reading in it that Jews were "cursed by God" and Christians were "led astray" - not sure why. Maybe some of the other things in the textbook were part-Qu'ran part generous-helping-of-intolerance.

Jocko

23rd May 2006, 11:02 AM

I do not think that it did.

At the grade school I went to we would start every day with a prayer and reciting the 'Pledge of Allegiance', my family and I went to church every week, and my father was minister. Yet I turned out be a person rather critical of the government and religion.

Crossbow, this is precisely what people say about advertising. Ask anyone, and they'll give you a litany of reasons for their consumer choices, but will always remark that they "aren't influenced by advertising."

And they are, to a man, categorically and utterly wrong in this respect.

bjb

23rd May 2006, 02:34 PM

Wow, you know, I went to Sunday school for a few years as a kid. I don't recall anything along those lines. How about you elaborate? Or is this another case of "they did it in the 14th century, therefore it's a valid tool for flimsy moral equivalency today" kind of thing?

Here you go:

http://www.battlecry.com/

and

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060523_battlecry_ron_luce

For what it's worth, I don't claim that the average Christian thinks like this. But these kinds of Christians are out there, and it would be great if Sunday schools would teach something about this type of lunacy.

[edited several times to fix links, spelling, and grammar]

Jocko

23rd May 2006, 02:43 PM

Here you go:

http://www.battlecry.com/

and

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060523_battlecry_ron_luce

For what it's worth, I don't claim that the average Christian thinks like this. But these kinds of Christians are out there, and it would be great if Sunday schools would teach something about this type of lunacy.

[edited several times to fix links, spelling, and grammar]

Sorry, could you point me to the content you equate to radical islam? I took a look but it all looked fairly innocuous to me.

BattleCry Explodes Onto the Scene in Detroit
Read about the Detroit BattleCry Stadium Event, where God changed thousands of lives.

Engaging Pastors and Parents in the Fight
Learn what the BattleCry is doing to solve the systemic issues of youth ministry.

A stealthy enemy has infiltrated our country and is preying upon the hearts and minds of 33 million American teens. Corporations, media conglomerates, and purveyors of popular culture have spent billions to seduce and enslave our youth. So far, the enemy is winning. But there is plenty we can do. We need to take action. We need to answer the Battle Cry.

A lot loopier than I like my ol' time religion, but hardly calling for the extermination of the infidels, isn't it?

ETA: This is also unlike Saudi Wahabism in that these are privately funded groups, as opposed to state-sanctioned entities.

bjb

23rd May 2006, 03:09 PM

No.

At first, I wanted to just post this link:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060523_battlecry_ron_luce

but it is a pretty one-sided story. I thought anyone looking at the official Battlecry website would see how crazy they were, but obviously I was wrong.

Here's a quote from the story (Evangelist Franklin Graham speaking):

[Graham next told the biblical story of Daniel “taming the Babylonians.” After celebrating the U.S. troops who are killing people by the thousands in Iraq right now, he preached that there is “no difference between the Iraqis today and Babylon 1,000 years ago.” In the Bible, Babylon is the epitome of evil and decadence. All manner of bloodlust and plunder against it is not just condoned but celebrated. As Psalm 137:9 spells out, even the babies are to be dashed against the rocks.

While calling on the youths present to engage in this “battle for the souls of men,” he declared: “No souls can be saved without the shedding of blood. Blood must be shed!” ]

As you can see, it is a very biased article, so read it with a critical eye. Even so, it is clear that these Battlezone freaks want a war with Islam.

BPSCG

23rd May 2006, 03:27 PM

As you can see, it is a very biased article, so read it with a critical eye. Even so, it is clear that these Battlezone freaks want a war with Islam.Okay, let's do a thought experiment.

Let's take the text from the link in the OP that shows what Muslim kids are being taught and reverse it. Where it says "Christians," we change it to "Muslims," where it says "the prophet," we change it to "the savior," where it says "Muhammad," we change it to "Jesus," and so forth.

Now, imagine that you find the following not only in private Christian schools in the U.S., but in the public schools as well. And imagine that it was not just in some public school, but in all of them. And imagine that those texts were published not just with the approval of the U.S. government, but with its full backing and financing:

FIRST GRADE
"Every religion other than Christianity is false."

"Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Christianity, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Christianity enters ____________."

FOURTH GRADE
"True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly."

FIFTH GRADE
"Whoever obeys the savior Jesus and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and the savior Jesus, even if they are his closest relatives."

"It is forbidden for a Christian to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and the savior Jesus, or someone who fights the religion of Christianity."

"A Christian, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion."

SIXTH GRADE
"Just as Christians were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Muslim heathens from Palestine, so will the whites and Christians emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true Crusade for God, for this is within God's power."

EIGHTH GRADE
"As cited in the Bible: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Muslims, the pedarasts of Muhammad."

"God told the savior, Jesus, about the Jews, who learned from parts of God's book [the Torah and the Gospels] that God alone is worthy of worship. Despite this, they espouse falsehood through idol-worship, soothsaying, and sorcery. In doing so, they obey the devil. They prefer the people of falsehood to the people of the truth out of envy and hostility. This earns them condemnation and is a warning to us not to do as they did."

"They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied [with them]."

"Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God."

"Activity: The student writes a composition on the danger of imitating the heathen Muslims."

NINTH GRADE
"The clash between this [Christian] community and the Jews and Muslims has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills."

"It is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Christian and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment]."

"Christians will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him."

TENTH GRADE
The 10th-grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Christians (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a "free Christian male." Blood money is retribution paid to the victim or the victim's heirs for murder or injury:

"Blood money for a free Muslim. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Christian, whether or not he is a Jew or not (such as a pagan, Unitarian, etc.).

"Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Christian woman is half of the blood money for a male Christian, and the blood money for an non-Christian (infidel) woman is half of the blood money for a non-Christian (infidel)."

ELEVENTH GRADE
"The greeting 'Peace be upon you' is specifically for Christians. It cannot be said to others."

"If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Christians and non-Christians, one should offer a greeting intended for the Christians."

"Do not yield to them [Muslims and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect."

TWELFTH GRADE
"Crusade in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Christianity. This religion arose through crusade and through crusade was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God."
Now, who still wants to say, "Well, we do the equivalent thing in America..."?

burrahobbit

24th May 2006, 05:24 AM

I do not think anyone can argue that fundie Xians are as bad as the Wahhabi Saudis.

I do think the US should be (and should have been) taking a long hard look at what the Saudi funded schools are doing worldwide.

And these are your ALLIES in the war on terror.

Whit friends like these......

BPSCG

24th May 2006, 05:31 AM

I do not think anyone can argue that fundie Xians are as bad as the Wahhabi Saudis. Ah, you haven't met Tony yet, I see.

Beerina

24th May 2006, 05:42 AM

I wonder if people making up the number of dead out of whole cloth might be an element.

Note also the "blame America first" stance that lays all the deaths at the feet of the US, even though the vast, vast majority were deaths due to terrorist strikes.

Crossbow

24th May 2006, 05:45 AM

We've been over this before, Crossbow. The Lancet numbers are simply unreliable. The best sampling survey estimate for casualties due to the war is from the UN Development Program survey, which sampled over 20 times as many households and didn't skip any provinces like the Lancet study did. It arrived at a much smaller figure of around 24,000 dead (IIRC), and with much smaller error bars (the error bars on the Lancet study were so huge that they include even the lower bound of the UNDP study). So why are you still repeating outdated and inaccurate information when better information has become available since then? You're a tool, Crossbow.

Another point is that BOTH number includes civilians and combatants (terrorists, Iraqi military under Saddam, and Iraqi security forces), and also do not distinguish between Iraqis killed by coalition forces and Iraqis killed by other Iraqis.

Well now, you sure are posting in your usual style.

On Monday you called me "pathetic" and on "Tuesday" you called me a "tool", so I wonder what you will call me today.

Anyway, since you are such an incredibly smart and informed person then I guess you should be the one to tell Bush how wrong he was when he disscussed how many Iraqis have died in the war about five months ago.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051212-4.html

President Discusses War on Terror and Upcoming Iraqi Elections

December 12, 2005

...

Qusetion:
Since the inception of the Iraqi war, I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators.

THE PRESIDENT:
How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.

...

If 25,000 Iraqis have been killed as you say (but for some reason you do not count the deaths of Iraqis in the military),
Or if 30,000 Iraqis have been killed as Bush says,
Or if 45,000 Iraqis have been killed as media analysis has concluded,
Or if 100,000 Iraqis have been killed as the Lancet studies have show,

Then that is still a great many people who have been killed by the USA who should have never been killed by the USA. It is due to this action and many others why there is such entrenched and popular anti-West sentiment in the Middle East (as indicated by the Saudi public education program).

Beerina

24th May 2006, 05:49 AM

At the grade school I went to we would start every day with a prayer and reciting the 'Pledge of Allegiance', my family and I went to church every week, and my father was minister. Yet I turned out be a person rather critical of the government and religion.

One could argue the system worked as it was supposed to. Criticizing and resisting government is a core American value. But respecting the institutions and cultural attitudes that declare such things important is something worthy of respect.

Well, I am not an expert in Soviet-era textbooks either, but I have read several books about the USSR and for several years ALL of the textbooks had a picture of Stalin on the inside front cover.

I recall seeing them interview a Soviet college student in the late '80's when the USSR was cracking down on something or other, and she said something like "It's good the government supresses people who don't think this way."

Yes, it isn't just some POS out of a fantasy novel.

BPSCG

24th May 2006, 05:51 AM

If 25,000 Iraqis have been killed as you say (but for some reason you do not count the deaths of Iraqis in the military),
Or if 30,000 Iraqis have been killed as Bush says,
Or if 45,000 Iraqis have been killed as media analysis has concluded,
Or if 100,000 Iraqis have been killed as the Lancet studies have show,

Then that is still a great many people who have been killed by the USA who should have never been killed by the USA. They were all killed by the U.S.?

Don't you think you might want to rephrase that, laddie?

It is due to this action and many others why there is such entrenched and popular anti-West sentiment in the Middle East (as indicated by the Saudi public education program).Really? So the "Saudi public education program" is a recent development? Was it put into place after the Iraq invasion? After the Afghanistan invasion? After September 11? After Gulf War I?

If none of the above, please tell us how long the Saudis have been filling their schoolchildren's heads with this kind of poison.

a_unique_person

24th May 2006, 05:54 AM

Wow, you know, I went to Sunday school for a few years as a kid. I don't recall anything along those lines. How about you elaborate? Or is this another case of "they did it in the 14th century, therefore it's a valid tool for flimsy moral equivalency today" kind of thing?

So you approve of US support of the Saud family? Or would you rather see the Wahabis formally in charge (as opposed to the de facto cultural dominance they enjoy today)?

Why should I reply to anything you write?

Crossbow

24th May 2006, 05:56 AM

Crossbow, this is precisely what people say about advertising. Ask anyone, and they'll give you a litany of reasons for their consumer choices, but will always remark that they "aren't influenced by advertising."

And they are, to a man, categorically and utterly wrong in this respect.

Sorry, but that is just not right.

While advertising can be quite effective to get people to buy things that they want.
Or get them to buy more of something that they want.
Or get them to buy what they want from a different manufacturer.

But if the people do not want the item being marketed, then it does not matter how well funded, invasive, or widespread the advertising is, then the people will not buy that item.

To prove this point, one simply has to look at the large number of very expensive and well planned advertising campaigns that have completely failed because the item was not desired by the public (i.e. the Ford 'Edsel').

a_unique_person

24th May 2006, 05:58 AM

a_unique_person

24th May 2006, 06:01 AM

From the article:

Well as we all know now and as the article stated:

The Saudis - Syrians, Iranians, Palestinians - think we in the West are as gullable as their own and would never bother to investigate something that Prince Turki al-Faisal promises up and down is not happening...They just expect us to capitulate to their "royal" decrees.

This is just another reality check when one is dealing with the Saudis...

Sorry to disagree with some JREFers but that kind of rhetoric was never taught to me at school in Grade eight, nine or ten...or at my synagogue..or at home. To compare this rhetoric to American "patriotic songs and prose" is woo.

They don't use such crude language, but Bush is all about demonising, which is what references to 'apes' is all about. We already have calls coming from forum members to nuke Iran. It's WWI all over again.

Jocko

24th May 2006, 06:50 AM

Sorry, but that is just not right.

I'm an ad writer of 10 years. What are your credentials?

While advertising can be quite effective to get people to buy things that they want.
Or get them to buy more of something that they want.
Or get them to buy what they want from a different manufacturer.

But if the people do not want the item being marketed, then it does not matter how well funded, invasive, or widespread the advertising is, then the people will not buy that item.

See how well I do my job? You actually believe this, don't you? Here's a one-word retort: McNuggets. Explain that one, Mr. Bernbach.*

To prove this point, one simply has to look at the large number of very expensive and well planned advertising campaigns that have completely failed because the item was not desired by the public (i.e. the Ford 'Edsel').

I'm not saying we never make mistakes. But I am saying that part of controlling your buying habits is keeping you from noticing we control your buying habits.

You don't drive an Edsel. True. But you drive something else, and someone like me had a bit to do with your decision.

*Bill Bernbach is held as one of the finest minds in advertising in the last century, and rightly so. I once worked for the agency that bore his name (or initial, anyway).

Jocko

24th May 2006, 06:51 AM

Why should I reply to anything you write?

Because you're an attention whore?

I can't think of any other reason that one would write a reply declaring that he won't write a reply. Can you?

geni

24th May 2006, 07:04 AM

I found this particular section ironic:

"Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam"

Thye should be battling against themselves.

They are. Bin larden original was trying top get rid of the house of saud.

Jocko

24th May 2006, 07:08 AM

They are. Bin larden original was trying top get rid of the house of saud.

Yeah, but their tactics make about as much sense as me punching out the banker who approved the loan for the builder who subcontracted out the sewer work that slowed traffic and made me late for work today.

But I still did it. ;)

Crossbow

24th May 2006, 07:17 AM

I'm an ad writer of 10 years. What are your credentials?

I am an electronics technician, an engineer, a college professor, a wood worker, and a pilot therefore I think that I am reasonably well qualified to make up my own mind as to what I buy.

See how well I do my job? You actually believe this, don't you? Here's a one-word retort: McNuggets. Explain that one, Mr. Bernbach.*

Er, as for me I have purchased three orders of McNuggets in my life some years ago because they were something that I had not had before and they only cost one dollar. By the way, I understand that McDonalds is having revenue problems that all of there increased advertising has not helped a great deal restoring their market share. P.S.: I hardly eat at McDonalds at all any more, since there food is not really all that good.

I'm not saying we never make mistakes. But I am saying that part of controlling your buying habits is keeping you from noticing we control your buying habits.

You don't drive an Edsel. True. But you drive something else, and someone like me had a bit to do with your decision.

*Bill Bernbach is held as one of the finest minds in advertising in the last century, and rightly so. I once worked for the agency that bore his name (or initial, anyway).

Thanks for admitting your fallibility and I do think that is fair to say that advertising has a bit to do with my buying habits. However you original statement said something far more powerful about the influence of advertising and that is the something which I disagree with.

Crossbow

24th May 2006, 07:31 AM

They were all killed by the U.S.?

Don't you think you might want to rephrase that, laddie?

Yes, they were all killed by the U.S. I do not know why that is so hard for you to understand, but it is just that simple.

The USA invaded Iraq which killed quite a few Iraqis.
After the invasion and into the present day, the USA failed to properly secure Iraq, so as Iraqis settled old scores against other Iraqis, criminals ran amok, and the Iraqi death toll continues to mount, the USA went around saying "stuff happens" and "mission accomplished".

Really? So the "Saudi public education program" is a recent development? Was it put into place after the Iraq invasion? After the Afghanistan invasion? After September 11? After Gulf War I?

If none of the above, please tell us how long the Saudis have been filling their schoolchildren's heads with this kind of poison.

Well I never said anything about the Saudi public education program you speak of being a recent development.

I expect that it is not, but in any case, there have been considerable tensions between the Middle East and European countries for centuries so I expect that there has been at least some anti-Western sentiments being taught in their schools for at least the last several decades.

Jocko

24th May 2006, 07:40 AM

I am an electronics technician, an engineer, a college professor, a wood worker, and a pilot therefore I think that I am reasonably well qualified to make up my own mind as to what I buy.

Wow, I'm sorry, I underestimated your relevant experience in advertising and marketing.

Er, as for me I have purchased three orders of McNuggets in my life some years ago because they were something that I had not had before and they only cost one dollar. By the way, I understand that McDonalds is having revenue problems that all of there increased advertising has not helped a great deal restoring their market share. P.S.: I hardly eat at McDonalds at all any more, since there food is not really all that good.

You missed the point. Why would anyone buy them? Because they obviously do. Oh, BTW, McD's is doing quite well, with same-store sales up 7% in April. And their market share still hovers in the 42% range, in spite of increasing competition and aggressive territorial expansion. Why? Because they have the strongest brand. They invest in it heavily and it pays dividends.

Thanks for admitting your fallibility and I do think that is fair to say that advertising has a bit to do with my buying habits. However you original statement said something far more powerful about the influence of advertising and that is the something which I disagree with.

Sorry, but you're saying you don't think it's happening doesn't contradict my point that you're not SUPPOSED to think it's happening. Think of it like hypnosis... your behavior can be modified, tweaked and exploited, but not forced to do something it would never do consciously.

And that, in conclusion, is why radical madrasses are a real concern and a real threat. They exploit the prejudices, ignorance and fear found in the ir students' own homes. They don't create it, but they reinforce it.

BPSCG

24th May 2006, 07:53 AM

Yes, they were all killed by the U.S. I do not know why that is so hard for you to understand, but it is just that simple.Sorry I'm so simple-minded, but I just can't wrap my brain around the concept that "foreign al Qaeda terrorists killing Iraqis = U.S. killing Iraqis."

I've heard of the "blame America first" brigade. Congratulations on having demonstrated there is also a "blame America first, last, and always" brigade.

Well I never said anything about the Saudi public education program you speak of being a recent development. And yet, you said earlier:
Then that is still a great many people who have been killed by the USA who should have never been killed by the USA. It is due to this action and many others why there is such entrenched and popular anti-West sentiment in the Middle East (as indicated by the Saudi public education program).So the Saudis hate us because of what we've done in Iraq since early 2003, but they were teaching their kids to hate us well before then. Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.

Ziggurat

24th May 2006, 07:57 AM

On Monday you called me "pathetic" and on "Tuesday" you called me a "tool", so I wonder what you will call me today.

How about an idiot? Let's try that one on for size.

You know, it's actually quite easy to get me to stop calling you names. All it takes is refraining from posting information that has already been discredited, ESPECIALLY after you've been called on it.

If 25,000 Iraqis have been killed as you say (but for some reason you do not count the deaths of Iraqis in the military),

Wrong again. The UNDP figures are TOTAL excess deaths, from ALL sources. It includes Iraqi military and security forces (both those killed during the initial invasion and in subsequent fighting against terrorists), as well as terrorist deaths. I specifically said so. Are you so stupid that you couldn't figure that out, or do you think we're so stupid we wouldn't notice you were lying about my claims?

Or if 30,000 Iraqis have been killed as Bush says,

Well, the UNDP numbers and Bush's statement weren't given at the same time - I think Bush's statement came more than a year later, and it only represents an approximation anyways, so I don't know why you think it represents any kind of discrepency.

Or if 45,000 Iraqis have been killed as media analysis has concluded,
Or if 100,000 Iraqis have been killed as the Lancet studies have show,

The media analysis is a different can of worms. Whatever its advantages or problems, it's a radically different way of measuring deaths. In fact, it's not actually even measuring the same thing - both the Lancet and the UNDP measure EXCESS deaths, the number of deaths (due to ANY cause) which can be attributed to a mortality level above prewar level. These media reports only report violent deaths, but they also have no method by which they can subtract a pre-war background level from the figures. You can prefer whichever metric you like, but they're simply NOT measuring the same thing.

The Lancet study, however, was EXACTLY the same kind of study as the UNDP study, with the exception that the UNDP study was more than 20 times as large, and didn't skip any provinces. Therefore the UNDP study is in ALL respects preferable to the Lancet study. If you think the media analysis is better than the UNDP study, fine, go ahead, but to continue to rely on a sampling study that has been superceded by MUCH more extensive and reliable results using the SAME methodology is simply inexcusable.

Then that is still a great many people who have been killed by the USA who should have never been killed by the USA.

Oh, pardon me. I guess if you pick the right position, actually getting the facts right doesn't really matter. Sorry, but getting the facts right DOES matter, regardless of what position you want to take. But you seem perpetually uninterested in doing that.

Yeah, I think "idiot" works for today.

BPSCG

24th May 2006, 08:04 AM

How about an idiot? Let's try that one on for size.

You know, it's actually quite easy to get me to stop calling you names. All it takes is refraining from posting information that has already been discredited, ESPECIALLY after you've been called on it.I'm assuming you were typing the above before you saw this little gem of Crossbow's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1658117#post1658117):Yes, they were all killed by the U.S. I do not know why that is so hard for you to understand, but it is just that simple.
Otherwise, you'd have probably had a few more choice names for him.

Ziggurat

24th May 2006, 08:36 AM

I'm assuming you were typing the above before you saw this little gem of Crossbow's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1658117#post1658117):

Yeah, I saw that. But unfortunately I don't think I do have quite the word to describe him - simple profanities can convey my emotional response, but they don't adequately capture his dishonesty. Crossbow has a bit of a language problem. Apparently, a terrorist in Iraq can blow themselves up and kill innocent bystanders, but that counts as Americans killing both the terrorist and the bystanders. Similarly, in Crossbowland, you can get fired with out actually, you know, getting fired (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1649179#post1649179). When you get to redefine the meaning of words (like "kill" and "fire") arbitrarily, you can make all sorts of crazy claims.

Manny

24th May 2006, 08:38 AM

Yeah, I saw that. But unfortunately I don't think I do have quite the word to describe him - simple profanities can convey my emotional response, but they don't adequately capture his dishonesty. Propagandist for the other side.

fishbob

24th May 2006, 08:52 AM

fishbob

24th May 2006, 08:56 AM

Crossbow

24th May 2006, 08:57 AM

Sorry I'm so simple-minded, but I just can't wrap my brain around the concept that "foreign al Qaeda terrorists killing Iraqis = U.S. killing Iraqis."

I've heard of the "blame America first" brigade. Congratulations on having demonstrated there is also a "blame America first, last, and always" brigade.

Well perhaps that is because foreign al Qaeda terrorists you are so concerned about were not actually in Iraq until AFTER the US invasion of Iraq. Perhaps you have not noticed this item as it has been extensively covered in the media. By the way, it now looks like most of the terrorism being perpetuated in Iraq is now being done by Iraqis.

And yet, you said earlier:
So the Saudis hate us because of what we've done in Iraq since early 2003, but they were teaching their kids to hate us well before then. Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.

If you knew anything about Middle Eastern history then it would make a lot of sense.

There has been a very long standing of hatred of Europeans among many in the Middle East for centuries (refer to the Crusades that occurred about 1000 years ago). Whereas more recent events (such as the Iraq War), and several others (the Israel situation, the way the Kurds and Shiites were abandoned after the first Gulf War, proliferation of Western Culture into the Middle East, and so on) have done a great deal to exacerbate that hatred as well as hatred against the USA in the last several years.

Jocko

24th May 2006, 09:05 AM

I bet you did not go to a southern baptist church or one of those charismatic sect churches. Sit through some of those and tell me there is no moral equivalency.

Sorry, Bob, I've spent a fair amount of time in Alabama and rural Florida. While I never spent a Sunday with the Pentacostals, I've dealt with them on other levels and there's nothing that even comes close to comparing. If your experiences differ, I'd love to hear more, of course.

24th May 2006, 09:12 AM

So, what's the difference between the Wahibists in Saudi Arabia, and the Dominionists in the USA?

Enquiring minds want to know.

BPSCG

24th May 2006, 09:20 AM

By the way, it now looks like most of the terrorism being perpetuated in Iraq is now being done by Iraqis. Nononononono... It's the Americans who are killing the Iraqis. I have it on no less an authority than...you.

C'mon, CB; pick one line and stick to it, wouldya?

There has been a very long standing of hatred of Europeans among many in the Middle East for centuries (refer to the Crusades that occurred about 1000 years ago). Whereas more recent events (such as the Iraq War), and several others (the Israel situation, the way the Kurds and Shiites were abandoned after the first Gulf War, proliferation of Western Culture into the Middle East, and so on) have done a great deal to exacerbate that hatred as well as hatred against the USA in the last several years.So the Crusades generated such a deep, rich hatred of all things western that they were able to nurture and keep alive that hatred for centuries.

But now we've really gone and pissed them off.

O...kayyyy....

Ziggurat

24th May 2006, 09:20 AM

proliferation of Western Culture into the Middle East,

Western culture doesn't get forced on anyone. It proliferates because it is attractive, and people CHOOSE it (or parts of it). So if they're pissed off at the proliferation of Western culture in the Middle East, they're really mad at their fellow middle-easterners for having the gall to choose something from another culture. In other words, who they're REALLY mad at is each other. How the fact that the Islamists hate Barbie advances your argument, I'm not really sure. Maybe there's a word in there somewhere you've redefined which ties it all together.

Jocko

24th May 2006, 09:33 AM

So, what's the difference between the Wahibists in Saudi Arabia, and the Dominionists in the USA?

I know! I know!

"Wahabists" is actually a word people use.

What do I win?

BPSCG

24th May 2006, 09:45 AM

... they're really mad at their fellow middle-easterners for having the gall to choose something from another culture. In other words, who they're REALLY mad at is each other. People's Exhibit A: Gaza. Now that the Israelis have made it damned near impossible to kill a Jew, they're shooting each other up. People get mad at me every time I compare the Palis to the Silastic Armourfiends of Striterax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Races_and_Species_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_t he_Galaxy#Silastic_Armourfiends_of_Striterax), but the comparison gets more apt every day.

I mean jeeze, how long are you supposed to be mad about the Crusades? My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents on my dad's side were enslaved by Egyptians. But you know what? I'm over it, and so is my sister.

bjb

24th May 2006, 09:48 AM

I don't see much difference in their goals. I think the difference is that the Wahibists are mainstream in their society and they recieve government support. The nutcase Christians we have in the US are just as bad but they are outsiders on the lunatic fringe, not at all representative of mainstream Americans. Also, they don't recieve government support. Fortunately, we still have some seperation between church and state here in the U.S.

Another difference between us 'n' them is that our society also has the concept of hate speech, which I think applies to the Battlecry people. I'm sure they have the idea of hate speech in Saudi Arabia, but it seems to apply only to those who critizise Islam

bjb

24th May 2006, 09:55 AM

Jocko

24th May 2006, 10:00 AM

We should try apologizing for all the US troops we sent over during the Crusades. Maybe that will help.

Throw in some steep reparations and you may be on to something.

Crossbow

24th May 2006, 10:03 AM

Nononononono... It's the Americans who are killing the Iraqis. I have it on no less an authority than...you.

C'mon, CB; pick one line and stick to it, wouldya?

I am not changing lines, but please try to keep up with this next bit of data.

The foreign al Qaeda terrorists did not exist in Iraq until AFTER the US invasion of Iraq.
By the same token, the indigenous Iraqi terrorists did not exist in Iraq until AFTER the US invasion of Iraq.

It was the US invasion of Iraq that has created and sustained these events therefore it is the US that is responsible for them.

So the Crusades generated such a deep, rich hatred of all things western that they were able to nurture and keep alive that hatred for centuries.

But now we've really gone and pissed them off.

O...kayyyy....

That is indeed the way many of them feel. Much in the same way that many Christians blame Jews of today for the killing of Jesus about 2000 years ago. Neither of these ideas is very logical, but both of them do have there strong adherents all the same.

For those of you who know a bit about history, I apologize for bogging down the thread with details, but some people are just too lazy to do their own research. Hopefully, he will be able to at least review these three high points of the Crusades and thus get a better idea of just the long lasting and profound hatred that some Muslims have against all things European and Christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade#Siege_of_Jerusalem

[B]Siege of Jerusalem

... Meanwhile, siege engines were constructed and seven days later on July 15 [1099], the crusaders were able to end the siege by breaking down sections of the walls and entering the city.

Over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning, the crusaders murdered almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem. Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians were all massacred. Although many Muslims sought shelter in Solomon's Temple (known today as Al-Aqsa Mosque), the crusaders spared few lives. According to the anonymous Gesta Francorum, in what some believe to be an exaggerated account of the massacre which subsequently took place there, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..."[3]. Other accounts of blood flowing up to the bridles of horses are reminiscent of a passage from the Book of Revelation (14:20). Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he was unable to prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders. According to Fulcher of Chartres: "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared."[4]

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade

Bernard of Clairvaux preaches the crusade [Second Crusade, 1146]

... But an even greater show of support came from the common people. St. Bernard wrote to the Pope a few days afterwards: "I opened my mouth; I spoke; and at once the Crusaders have multiplied to infinity. Villages and towns are now deserted. You will scarcely find one man for every seven women. Everywhere you see widows whose husbands are still alive".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Acre

Siege of Acre [Third Crusade, 1191]

... It was now up to Richard and Saladin to finalize the surrender of the city. The Christians began to rebuild Acre’s defenses, and Saladin collected money to pay for the ransom of the imprisoned garrison. On August 11 Saladin delivered the first of the three planned payments and prisoner exchanges, but Richard rejected this because certain Christian nobles were not included. The exchange was broken off and further negotiations were unsuccessful. On August 20, Richard thought that Saladin had delayed too much, and had 2700 of the Muslim prisoners from the garrison of Acre killed, including women and children despite having promised that he would only sell the prisoners off. The Muslims fought back in an attempt to prevent this, but they were defeated. On August 22 Richard and his army left the city, now fully under crusader control. ...

Manny

24th May 2006, 10:03 AM

Mycroft

24th May 2006, 10:05 AM

No.

At first, I wanted to just post this link:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060523_battlecry_ron_luce

I'm no fan of Battlecry, whatever that is, but the reporter Sunsara Taylor is just as whacked-out as the as the fundamentalists she's reporting on.

"Early on the second day of the Christian evangelical rock concert’s two-day run, a tribal drumbeat filled the stadium and a voice boomed out from the speakers: “The most violent people in human history.”

Which race of people, you’re probably wondering, might fit that bill? The Nazis during World War II? The U.S. slave traders? How about the George Bush White House?”

Wow, the George Bush White House in direct comparison to the Nazis and slave traders.

"In answer to that question, grainy images of indigenous Ecuadoreans running around and throwing spears appeared on the stadium screens. Proof of their “barbarism”? Forget for a moment that their land and way of life were destroyed by oil prospectors; these “savages” had killed five missionaries who came to destroy their belief systems decades ago. One of the supposed killers was brought on stage. He had been “civilized” by the Bible and called on the assembled youths to sign up for missionary trips to convert others in Ecuador."

Granted this preacher is nuts for claiming these indigenous people are “the most violent in history” just for killing 5 missionaries, but the casual way this writer excuses the killing is just as bad. Does prospecting for oil or evangelizing justify murder? No, it doesn’t.

I could go on picking apart the article highlighting her lunacy, but it’s faster and easier to just describe who she is. From the biography section:

”Sunsara Taylor writes for Revolution newspaper and sits on the Advisory Board of The World Can’t Wait—Drive Out the Bush Regime.”

Revolution newspaper, what a surprise! She’s a communist!

Her blog:

http://sunsara.blogspot.com/

Amazing, Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA right there on the first page., his books are among her favorites in her biography.

Mycroft

24th May 2006, 10:15 AM

I mean jeeze, how long are you supposed to be mad about the Crusades?

I also think it's worth pointing out that while the Crusades are portrayed as something Christianity did to Islam, the reality is that they were something that happened between Christianity and Islam. The goal of expansion of territory and influence was just as important to the Muslims as it was to the Christians, and I believe any rational assessment would proclaim Islam the victor. If we believe Muslims have reason to still be angry, we should also agree that Christians should be as well.

Tailgater

24th May 2006, 10:20 AM

Crossbow, this is precisely what people say about advertising. Ask anyone, and they'll give you a litany of reasons for their consumer choices, but will always remark that they "aren't influenced by advertising."

And they are, to a man, categorically and utterly wrong in this respect.

I think you guys kind of took a turn down the wrong road with this one. I wasn't sure where to start, so i went to the beginning of the arguement. "Advertising" is actually too light of an example for this. The big difference between you going to school and church here and not there is the choices around you. Here, you might have 30 kids in a room that all come from different backgrounds and teachers with all different political and religious ideas to throw around. There, every kid comes from the same type of home with the same set of ideas being handed down to every generation and teachers that don't put forth the idea to think for yourself but what they teach you. And if a teacher started spouting on about freedoms of politics and religion, what do you think would happen?

BPSCG

24th May 2006, 10:21 AM

I am not changing lines, but please try to keep up with this next bit of data.

The foreign al Qaeda terrorists did not exist in Iraq until AFTER the US invasion of Iraq.No, they didn't. For the most part, anyway; Saddam had some al Qaeda contacts before the war. But you're right, they were scattered all over the middle east and Africa. But they did exist; al Qaeda did not come into existence because of the Iraq war. All the war did was prompt them to gather in one place (where they're easier to kill).

By the same token, the indigenous Iraqi terrorists did not exist in Iraq until AFTER the US invasion of Iraq.Yes they did. The difference is that indigenous Iraqi terrorists actually ran the government. Or how else would you describe Saddam and his thugs?

It was the US invasion of Iraq that has created and sustained these events therefore it is the US that is responsible for them.Again, al Qaeda existed before the invasion; all the invasion did (other than overthrow Saddam and give Iraq at leasgt a fighting chance to become a legitimate democracy) was give al Qaeda a place to go and fight the infidels.

That is indeed the way many of them feel. Much in the same way that many Christians blame Jews of today for the killing of Jesus about 2000 years ago. Assuming that claim is true - and I'd love to see your evidence of that - do Christians go around slaughtering Jews these days? Does anybody go around slaughtering Jews these days?

Well, yes, there is one group of people that goes about slaughtering Jews. Can you explain what that group's grudge against the Jews might be? I hadn't heard about the great Jewish Crusade...

For those of you who know a bit about history, I apologize for bogging down the thread with details, but some people [BPSCG] are just too lazy to do their own research. Uh, yeah. Actually, I have some references that will have to wait until I get back home; the facts about the Crusades aren't as cut-and-dried as your wikipedia links suggest.

Crossbow

24th May 2006, 10:22 AM

Wow, I'm sorry, I underestimated your relevant experience in advertising and marketing.

Well you were the one who asked about my qualifications, and I gave them to you in order to show that I am qualified to make my own purchasing decisions. Again, you originally said something about everyone can be made to buy things based on advertising, and I have to disagree with that sentiment.

You missed the point. Why would anyone buy them? Because they obviously do. Oh, BTW, McD's is doing quite well, with same-store sales up 7% in April. And their market share still hovers in the 42% range, in spite of increasing competition and aggressive territorial expansion. Why? Because they have the strongest brand. They invest in it heavily and it pays dividends.

I guess I did miss the point. I think that I would have bought the McNuggets regardless of the advertising because of their low cost and the fact that they were a new item. However, it does not matter to me how much money McDonalds spends on advertising, or what there market share is, or how many clever ads you write for them, or anything else like that, because they have bad food and as such I seldom buy it (by the way, I know several other people that feel the same way).

Sorry, but you're saying you don't think it's happening doesn't contradict my point that you're not SUPPOSED to think it's happening. Think of it like hypnosis... your behavior can be modified, tweaked and exploited, but not forced to do something it would never do consciously.

And that, in conclusion, is why radical madrasses are a real concern and a real threat. They exploit the prejudices, ignorance and fear found in the ir students' own homes. They don't create it, but they reinforce it.

Again, I think that is fair to say about advertising. Like hypnosis, advertising can be used to modify, tweak, and exploit buying patterns. However, hypnosis can only do so much, it cannot be used to change or create anything about a person that they do not want changed or created, and the same thing applies to advertising.

In order to get people to purchase a product, or in this case, accept a religious dogma, then those people have to actually want the product or they have to actually want, or they have to want to embrace the dogma being offered. Desires such as these are something that has to come from within the person: do you agree with that?

If so, then I would say that were are talking about the same thing.

Tailgater

24th May 2006, 10:22 AM

And yes, we have loonies here too. But we have all kinds of loonies, not just one kind.:boggled:

Any know how many non-sadam supporters were killed prewar?

Crossbow

24th May 2006, 11:23 AM

I'm assuming you were typing the above before you saw this little gem of Crossbow's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1658117#post1658117):Otherwi se, you'd have probably had a few more choice names for him.

Yeah, I saw that. But unfortunately I don't think I do have quite the word to describe him - simple profanities can convey my emotional response, but they don't adequately capture his dishonesty. Crossbow has a bit of a language problem. Apparently, a terrorist in Iraq can blow themselves up and kill innocent bystanders, but that counts as Americans killing both the terrorist and the bystanders. Similarly, in Crossbowland, you can get fired with out actually, you know, getting fired (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1649179#post1649179). When you get to redefine the meaning of words (like "kill" and "fire") arbitrarily, you can make all sorts of crazy claims.

Well in my defense, I was working on a rather lengthily reply that was geared toward people who have little to no military experience that would show the different ways that a military officer can be "booted out of the door" without their superiors actually having to go on record and say that this officer is indeed being "booted out of the door". However, my life is rather busy most of the time and I have not finished this reply yet as I did not think that it was worth the effort.

To explain, I get the impression that neither 'BPSCG' or 'Ziggurat' was in the military, and while I do not hold such a thing against anyone, it can make it difficult to explain via these text messages how the military actually handles personnel issues which is rather special since military life is so much different than civilian life.

Further, judging by what 'BPSCG' and 'Ziggurat' have said in this thread and other threads where I have dealt with them, shows me that they are rather dense individuals who revert to the pattern of insults and silly questions when provided with data and facts.

But regardless of my personal impressions of 'BPSCG' and 'Ziggurat', I will post the response they seek just a soon as I can and hopefully it will stop their collective whining about this lack of information

BPSCG

24th May 2006, 11:31 AM

Further, judging by what 'BPSCG' and 'Ziggurat' have said in this thread and other threads where I have dealt with them, shows me that they are rather dense individuals who revert to the pattern of insults and silly questions when provided with data and facts.:i:

Ziggurat

24th May 2006, 12:07 PM

To explain, I get the impression that neither 'BPSCG' or 'Ziggurat' was in the military, and while I do not hold such a thing against anyone, it can make it difficult to explain via these text messages how the military actually handles personnel issues which is rather special since military life is so much different than civilian life.

You want to claim he was sidelined for his comments? Fine. That's entirely possible. You want say he was treated badly or unfairly? Go ahead, there's probably a case to be made. You want to argue that his treatment had the effect of intimidating others within the military from speaking out? Hey, that's totally possible. But he was simply NOT fired. There's no subtlety about that, it's not a nuance, it's quite a plain issue. "Fired" is where you're relieved of your duties, your position, and your salary. Whatever else the military can do to your employment status, none of them can qualify as firing unless you lose all three of those things. Shinseki lost NONE of those. So when you continue to say he was fired, even after those facts have been pointed out to you and even though those facts remain undisputed, you're lying. It really is that simple.

And you call ME dense? Sorry, but you've got to do better than defer to some hypothetical unwritten post if you want anyone to swallow this bull.

Jocko

24th May 2006, 12:23 PM

Crossbow

24th May 2006, 12:25 PM

How about an idiot? Let's try that one on for size.

You know, it's actually quite easy to get me to stop calling you names. All it takes is refraining from posting information that has already been discredited, ESPECIALLY after you've been called on it.

Wrong again. The UNDP figures are TOTAL excess deaths, from ALL sources. It includes Iraqi military and security forces (both those killed during the initial invasion and in subsequent fighting against terrorists), as well as terrorist deaths. I specifically said so. Are you so stupid that you couldn't figure that out, or do you think we're so stupid we wouldn't notice you were lying about my claims?

Well, the UNDP numbers and Bush's statement weren't given at the same time - I think Bush's statement came more than a year later, and it only represents an approximation anyways, so I don't know why you think it represents any kind of discrepency.

The media analysis is a different can of worms. Whatever its advantages or problems, it's a radically different way of measuring deaths. In fact, it's not actually even measuring the same thing - both the Lancet and the UNDP measure EXCESS deaths, the number of deaths (due to ANY cause) which can be attributed to a mortality level above prewar level. These media reports only report violent deaths, but they also have no method by which they can subtract a pre-war background level from the figures. You can prefer whichever metric you like, but they're simply NOT measuring the same thing.

The Lancet study, however, was EXACTLY the same kind of study as the UNDP study, with the exception that the UNDP study was more than 20 times as large, and didn't skip any provinces. Therefore the UNDP study is in ALL respects preferable to the Lancet study. If you think the media analysis is better than the UNDP study, fine, go ahead, but to continue to rely on a sampling study that has been superceded by MUCH more extensive and reliable results using the SAME methodology is simply inexcusable.

Oh, pardon me. I guess if you pick the right position, actually getting the facts right doesn't really matter. Sorry, but getting the facts right DOES matter, regardless of what position you want to take. But you seem perpetually uninterested in doing that.

Yeah, I think "idiot" works for today.

The term idiot works pretty good for you too!

Bush gave the figure of 30,000 about five months ago.
The data you use comes from from about a year before that.
Therefore your data is 17 months out of date.

Yet you state today "getting the facts right DOES matter, regardless of what position you want to take". That is great sentiment and it sure is a shame that it is wasted on idiot like yourself.

Ziggurat

24th May 2006, 12:32 PM

The term idiot works pretty good for you too!

Bush gave the figure of 30,000 about five months ago.
The data you use comes from from about a year before that.
Therefore your data is 17 months out of date.

Yet you state today "getting the facts right DOES matter, regardless of what position you want to take". That is great sentiment and it sure is a shame that it is wasted on idiot like yourself.

:confused: Did I ever CLAIM that those data were the most up-to-date? Did I ever CLAIM that they represented a total as of today? No, I did not - I rather explicitly said it was old. So what, exactly, are you complaining about? The fact that I use a number which isn't current? Sorry, but there is no equivalent study which covers a time period up until today, so I make due with what's available, and try to take that into account. You, though, prefer to use the highest number you can get your hands on, regardless of its accuracy or reliability. Who do you think you're impressing with that pathetic line of argument?

Crossbow

24th May 2006, 12:38 PM

Well, you've never worked in advertising or marketing, yet feel comfortable telling a veteran like me how they work WRT your lifestyle. I don't hold that against you; but it makes it difficult to explain what goes on behind the curtain. ;)

Excuse me, but I really do not think that you follow what I am saying!

On the one hand you state things like everyone is controlled by advertising.
Sorry, but that is just not true and I do not have to be an advertising expert to know that.

Other times you state that people are influenced by advertising.
Yes, that is quite true and I do not have to be an advertising expert to know that either.

Just like you do not have to be an engineer to know how lever works.
Just like you do not have to be a woodworker to sharpen a pencil.
And so forth and so on.

Back to the case at hand, there can be very big difference between control and influence. Example: one can influence the results of an election by their vote, however that one vote is not going to control the results of that election.

Is that clear now?

Crossbow

24th May 2006, 12:51 PM

:confused: Did I ever CLAIM that those data were the most up-to-date? Did I ever CLAIM that they represented a total as of today? No, I did not - I rather explicitly said it was old. So what, exactly, are you complaining about? The fact that I use a number which isn't current? Sorry, but there is no equivalent study which covers a time period up until today, so I make due with what's available, and try to take that into account. You, though, prefer to use the highest number you can get your hands on, regardless of its accuracy or reliability. Who do you think you're impressing with that pathetic line of argument?

Dear Stupid:

True enough, you never claimed that your data was up to date.

In fact, you failed to give any information on your data at all until I called you on it. In fact, you still have not adequately provided any background information for the data you presented.

I, on the other hand, provided THREE different pieces of data and links to the data in question so that anyone would be able to see for themselves.

I do not know what the actual number of people killed in Iraq is as a result of the US invasion of Iraq and probably no one will ever know it. However, it is fair to say that it will at least be in the tens of thousands so if you can you might want to consider that fact while you fret about what is being taught at school in Saudi Arabia.

Ziggurat

24th May 2006, 12:55 PM

Excuse me, but I really do not think that you follow what I am saying!

No, Crossbow. I think he understood you. You just didn't understand him (more below).

Just like you do not have to be an engineer to know how lever works.
Just like you do not have to be a woodworker to sharpen a pencil.
And so forth and so on.

Well, yes. That was rather his point. He copied the form of the argument you had made about military knowledge, substituting in the equivalents regarding advertising. You correctly point out that one doesn't need to be an expert in a field to know basic information about it. But that was, in fact, exactly his point. It just went over your head, because you missed the obvious parallel he was setting up.

Jocko

24th May 2006, 01:00 PM

Excuse me, but I really do not think that you follow what I am saying!

On the one hand you state things like everyone is controlled by advertising.
Sorry, but that is just not true and I do not have to be an advertising expert to know that.

Other times you state that people are influenced by advertising.
Yes, that is quite true and I do not have to be an advertising expert to know that either.

Just like you do not have to be an engineer to know how lever works.
Just like you do not have to be a woodworker to sharpen a pencil.
And so forth and so on.

Sorry Crossbow, I hate to beat the same dead horse but you say the same thing everyone does WRT advertising. You don't know what you don't know. You're not SUPPOSED to know what you don't know. Odds are, you probably wouldn't care about what you don't know.

That said, Zig is right about a poke at the "don't comment if you haven't been there" POV. ;)

Back to the case at hand, there can be very big difference between control and influence. Example: one can influence the results of an election by their vote, however that one vote is not going to control the results of that election.

Sure, it's the difference between molding one consumer's choice and an entire segment of consumers choices. At the micro level (i.e., you) it makes no difference. You're still part of the equation and operate within it, no matter how much you choose to believe or not believe in it.

Is that clear now?

Perfectly; it always was. If it makes you feel any better, I'm part of that machinery and not even I am immune to its effects... in spite of my well-attuned sense of consumer cynicism.

Ziggurat

24th May 2006, 01:00 PM

In fact, you failed to give any information on your data at all until I called you on it. In fact, you still have not adequately provided any background information for the data you presented.

"Called on it?" You never even asked about it. Here, let me show you what you could have done:

"Ziggurat, can you please link to the UNDP survey results?"

Easy, simple, straightforward, unambiguous. You didn't do that, and now you're pissed that I couldn't read your mind and figure out what you wanted? Well, I appologize. Here you go:
http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm
Knock yourself out.

luchog

24th May 2006, 04:55 PM

I mean jeeze, how long are you supposed to be mad about the Crusades? My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents on my dad's side were enslaved by Egyptians. But you know what? I'm over it, and so is my sister.
Well, I'm not! I demand that the Pharoahs pay reparations for the enslavement and maltreatment of my far distant ancestors. Now!

But I'm not greedy, I'll settle for a plate of really good baklava, a few cases of pommegranates, and a couple really hot Egyptian women (they gotta be in those dancer costumes, like in those paintings inside the pyramids).

Elind

24th May 2006, 05:54 PM

I mean jeeze, how long are you supposed to be mad about the Crusades? My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents on my dad's side were enslaved by Egyptians. But you know what? I'm over it, and so is my sister.

And yet millions went to see that snuff movie (I hear, I haven't seen it) called the Passion and came away blaming you know who. That was how many years before the Crusades? When one reveres events 2000 or 1400 years ago, anything after is as good as yesterday.

Elind

24th May 2006, 06:01 PM

Peace, love, and tolerance. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769.html)

Read that in our local paper today. Really though, what can one expect?

This is a theocracy based on those teachings. The parents, the grandparents, the teachers, the judges, the preachers; all grew up with that education and what's more it's written so by the hand of God. Think we, even as atheists, would not have Christmas holidays if the ACLU said it should be banned?

Little by little it may change, after we here are long gone, maybe not.

fishbob

25th May 2006, 01:32 AM

Sorry, Bob, I've spent a fair amount of time in Alabama and rural Florida. While I never spent a Sunday with the Pentacostals, I've dealt with them on other levels and there's nothing that even comes close to comparing. If your experiences differ, I'd love to hear more, of course.
Spend a Sunday with them then. If you dare. What you hear from them in public might just be a bit restrained.

I have sat through a couple of church services that included lots of random 'speaking in tongues' by congregants. That was the least wierd part. Very fundamentalist.

Turns out that tolerance for those with other beliefs was not popular. At all. There were no jihad calls, but they knew that there was a visitor in attendance.

25th May 2006, 01:54 AM

I mean jeeze, how long are you supposed to be mad about the Crusades? My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents on my dad's side were enslaved by Egyptians. But you know what? I'm over it, and so is my sister.

Well, if they hadn't joined the Crusader army of Louis VII, they wouldn't have been enslaved by the Egyptians in the first place so they really had only themselves to blame.

bigred

25th May 2006, 02:06 AM

bigred

25th May 2006, 02:11 AM

Okay, let's do a thought experiment.

Let's take the text from the link in the OP that shows what Muslim kids are being taught and reverse it. Where it says "Christians," we change it to "Muslims," where it says "the prophet," we change it to "the savior," where it says "Muhammad," we change it to "Jesus," and so forth.

Now, imagine that you find the following not only in private Christian schools in the U.S., but in the public schools as well. And imagine that it was not just in some public school, but in all of them. And imagine that those texts were published not just with the approval of the U.S. government, but with its full backing and financing:

Now, who still wants to say, "Well, we do the equivalent thing in America..."?

:thunderous applause:

Bravo BPSCG.

bigred

25th May 2006, 02:14 AM

Because you're an attention whore?

I can't think of any other reason that one would write a reply declaring that he won't write a reply. Can you?
LMAO

PS: the ignore feature is your friend. :cool:

a_unique_person

25th May 2006, 04:55 AM

Because you're an attention whore?

I can't think of any other reason that one would write a reply declaring that he won't write a reply. Can you?

I think you just made it perfectly clear what other reasons there are.

Jocko

25th May 2006, 07:29 AM

I think you just made it perfectly clear what other reasons there are.

Must've missed it. Why not enlighten me with another "why should I respond" response? I enjoy watching irony in action, even your poor execution of the art.

Besides, you need your post count to bolster your imagined integrity; Lord knows your content isn't doing the job.

Kiwiwriter

25th May 2006, 07:42 AM

They hate, loathe, and despise us...but they sell us oil and expect us to defend them from invasion.

It's sickening. It's also scary, because this teaching is energizing suicide bombers and Muslim fundamentalists to cause chaos across the world.

Crossbow

25th May 2006, 07:55 AM

No, they didn't. For the most part, anyway; Saddam had some al Qaeda contacts before the war. But you're right, they were scattered all over the middle east and Africa. But they did exist; al Qaeda did not come into existence because of the Iraq war. All the war did was prompt them to gather in one place (where they're easier to kill).

Sure Iraq had contacts with al Qaeda before the war. Lots of governments did. Of course, contacts can range anywhere from a telephone call or text message all the way to actual material support.
The point is, that al Qaeda was not operating in any substantial way in Iraq until after the US invasion of Iraq.

Yes they did. The difference is that indigenous Iraqi terrorists actually ran the government. Or how else would you describe Saddam and his thugs?

While the pre-war government or Iraq was powerful and repressive, it was hardly a terrorist form of government. If it was, then it would have been impossible for Iraq to produce all of the oil it did before the war started and that is why Saddam avoided getting involved with al Qaeda because he knew that he would never be able to control them.

Again, al Qaeda existed before the invasion; all the invasion did (other than overthrow Saddam and give Iraq at leasgt a fighting chance to become a legitimate democracy) was give al Qaeda a place to go and fight the infidels.

That is true, however one should note that the invasion has done a great deal more than simply provide convenient targets for al Qaeda.
It has also proved to be real distraction of US foreign policy which has enabled other governments (like the "Axis of Evil" nations such Iran and North Korea) to do some of the things they that have been wanting to do.
It has driven up the cost of oil which has helped make some of the nations we have issues with (such as Iran and Syria) a good bit richer.
It has driven up the Federal Budget Deficit to record highs, thus making other nations (such as China) rather wealthy at our expense.
And so forth and so on.

Assuming that claim is true - and I'd love to see your evidence of that - do Christians go around slaughtering Jews these days? Does anybody go around slaughtering Jews these days?

Well, yes, there is one group of people that goes about slaughtering Jews. Can you explain what that group's grudge against the Jews might be? I hadn't heard about the great Jewish Crusade...

Slaughtering of Jews these days? No, fortunately that really does not happen anymore.
However, there has been a great deal Jew slaughtering in fairly recent history such as the Pogroms of Czar Nicholas II in the early 1900s (as done by devout Eastern Orthodox Christians), and the Nazi Holocaust of the 1940's (many Nazis who were directly involved considered themselves to be good Christians). More recently, there has been a substantial resurgence of anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe and Russia, as well as numerous anti-Semitism groups elsewhere (KKK, neo-Nazis, etc. who also consider themselves to be good Christians) which does show itself in acts of isolated anti-Jewish violence.

It may seem hard for you to belive, but there are still plenty of people who do actually blame Jews of today for the killing of Jesus. I know because there are a few of these people in my family.

Uh, yeah. Actually, I have some references that will have to wait until I get back home; the facts about the Crusades aren't as cut-and-dried as your wikipedia links suggest.

Well good reading to you then! Also, I was not trying to present the facts about the Crusades being cut-and-dried, because that is not the case; I was simply providing you with some elementary data that you appeared to lack.

If you really want more data about the Crusades there are any number books and documentaries about the subject that you will have to study yourself and I hope that in doing so you will develop some understanding of your enemy.

Crossbow

25th May 2006, 08:00 AM

Sorry Crossbow, I hate to beat the same dead horse but you say the same thing everyone does WRT advertising. You don't know what you don't know. You're not SUPPOSED to know what you don't know. Odds are, you probably wouldn't care about what you don't know.

That said, Zig is right about a poke at the "don't comment if you haven't been there" POV. ;)

Sure, it's the difference between molding one consumer's choice and an entire segment of consumers choices. At the micro level (i.e., you) it makes no difference. You're still part of the equation and operate within it, no matter how much you choose to believe or not believe in it.

Perfectly; it always was. If it makes you feel any better, I'm part of that machinery and not even I am immune to its effects... in spite of my well-attuned sense of consumer cynicism.

Thanks so much for clearing that up!

I was not trying to be obstinate in this discussion, I had simply thought that your original statement about the power of advertising was a tad overstated.

varwoche

25th May 2006, 08:10 AM

Just remember this next time you hear someone say that our presence in Iraq is what's creating terrorists. Nope. A nope by proclamation, and contrary to the opinions of counter-terrorism experts such as Scheuer and Clark. (Citations available on request.)

Crossbow

25th May 2006, 08:13 AM

"Called on it?" You never even asked about it. Here, let me show you what you could have done:

"Ziggurat, can you please link to the UNDP survey results?"

Easy, simple, straightforward, unambiguous. You didn't do that, and now you're pissed that I couldn't read your mind and figure out what you wanted? Well, I appologize. Here you go:
http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm
Knock yourself out.

Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004

... The larger part of the survey took place in April and May 2004, while fieldwork in the governorates of Erbil and Dahouk was carried out in August 2004.

...

Sooooo, you use data that is 25 months to 21 months out of date and use this information to show that I am an "idiot".

Well thank you so very much! It is no wonder why you did not provide your data source when you wrote such a flaming post.

I expect that is about as much logic and sense as one could expect from a stupid person like Ziggurat.

Mycroft

25th May 2006, 08:24 AM

Spend a Sunday with them then. If you dare. What you hear from them in public might just be a bit restrained.

I have sat through a couple of church services that included lots of random 'speaking in tongues' by congregants. That was the least wierd part. Very fundamentalist.

Turns out that tolerance for those with other beliefs was not popular. At all. There were no jihad calls, but they knew that there was a visitor in attendance.

Back in the day I fell in with some Pentecostals. I was killing time in a video arcade when this really cute girl approached me and invited me to a bible study/prayer meet. At the meeting, one by one, they would say a normal prayer in English, then they would “feel moved” to conclude “in tongues”, which meant praying something in incomprehensible gibberish, then they would search my face for my reaction to this “miracle.”

That first meeting was followed by a series of bible study sessions after. The speaking in tongues was creepy but harmless. I asked them why the biblical speaking in tongues was when everyone in a multi-national audience understood the speaker in their native language while modern speaking in tongues was just the opposite, speaking in gibberish nobody could understand. They said something about the needs of modern times being different from ancient times, which didn’t seem like a very satisfying answer.

Their actual beliefs were not really any different (as far as I could tell) from the Baptists I grew up with. When it came down to it, they still loved the sinner even if they hated the sin, and nothing they said would lead one to violence. If you came away with an impression they were more prone to violence then that, I wonder if maybe it’s because you never got over being frightened by their speaking in tongues.

mycodenameismilo

25th May 2006, 08:27 AM

The House of Saud made a devil's bargain with Wahhabism. The Wahhabis would provide "legitimacy" for their seizure of power in the peninsula in return for social and religious control. Now they are caught by the implications of this policy. Wahhabism says that all social and economic problems are caused by not practising "pure" Islam, so the obvious conclusion to any frustrated middle or lower class Saudi looking at the problems there is that the House of Saud is not practising proper Islam. Solution? Violent fundamentalist revolution.

What they are teaching in schools is a symptom, not a cause, of the problem. That's why the Danish cartoons were so useful, as they provided a pressure valve. The danger is, at some stage, the Saudis will completely lose control of the demon they created themselves, if it's not happening already.

Jason Burke's excellent book "Al Qaeda" gives a very good history of Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism, it's well worth a read. I'm currently reading a history of the English Civil War, and it's striking how similar some of the pronouncements by religious millenarian extremists then are to those of Muslim fundamentalists today. I guess the world is never short of those willing to kill their neighbour for God.

RyanRoberts

25th May 2006, 08:51 AM

The house of Saud have been Wahhabi for pretty much as long as there have been Wahhabis. Mr Wahab's daughter married into the family.

Wahhabism isn't theologically that different from any other branch of Islam - all islamic theology is literalistic and considers the text immutable. Main difference is their willingness to kill other Muslims, after condemning them as apostates.

Didn't at least two senior round head officers think they were the messiah in the civil war? Must have been a good idea to keep them apart.

Ziggurat

25th May 2006, 09:57 AM

Sooooo, you use data that is 25 months to 21 months out of date and use this information to show that I am an "idiot".

The UNDP survey was pretty contemporary with the Lancet numbers, which you have relied upon. But the date of the various statistics isn't why I called you an idiot. It's because you made weird and wrong assumptions about what the numbers I presented actually meant. You said "If 25,000 Iraqis have been killed as you say (but for some reason you do not count the deaths of Iraqis in the military)," despite the fact that the UNDP numbers DID include military deaths. Where did you ever get the idea that they didn't? It didn't come from anywhere but your own head. If you just didn't know what the number represented, you should have asked. Instead, you jumped to a wrong conclusion. And I called you an idiot for that.

Well thank you so very much! It is no wonder why you did not provide your data source when you wrote such a flaming post.

No, I'm afraid it was simple laziness on my part. Laziness is a sin I will freely admit to.

I expect that is about as much logic and sense as one could expect from a stupid person like Ziggurat.

Really, Crossbow. When you want to insult my intelligence, please, please, PLEASE try to at least show a modicum of creativity. That insult was simply tedious to read. It was flat and uninspired, the sort of retort you'd expect from a flustered second grader. I'm sure you're capable of doing better. Here, I'll even give you an example:

"I wouldn't expect better logic from Ziggurat, since he's only just made the transition from punching those burger and fries pictures on the cash register to actually stringing together letters on a real keyboard to form words. One step at a time, Zig."

See? Isn't that so much more biting, and interesting to read too? Now you give it a try. Just remember: no profanities. If you have to resort to profanities to insult someone, it just means you don't have the right number of chromosomes.

mycodenameismilo

26th May 2006, 01:24 AM

Wahhabism isn't theologically that different from any other branch of Islam - all islamic theology is literalistic and considers the text immutable. Main difference is their willingness to kill other Muslims, after condemning them as apostates.

I'm no expert, and if you are sure of your statement then I'll accept that, but I had thought that Wahhabism was considerably more puritanical than most Sunni practices. My flatmate is Sunni and reckons they are outside the larger Islamic mainstream (I mean the non-Arabian Islamic world) but are using Saudi funds to buy influence, through the construction of these Madrassas. That seems to be what is happening in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Iraq, none of which had any Wahhabism before the various conflicts, as far as I've read.

I'm not so sure the text is immutable either - there are contradictory passages in the Koran (eg, kill the infidels Vs don't kill the infidels) and it seems to be up to the imams which passages they focus on. So a hate-mongering extremist can cherry-pick just as easily as a peaceful type.

Regarding the Roundheads, haven't come across that bit yet, but I wouldn't be surprised! Fascinating period of history though.

Crossbow

26th May 2006, 07:43 AM

The UNDP survey was pretty contemporary with the Lancet numbers, which you have relied upon. But the date of the various statistics isn't why I called you an idiot. It's because you made weird and wrong assumptions about what the numbers I presented actually meant. You said "If 25,000 Iraqis have been killed as you say (but for some reason you do not count the deaths of Iraqis in the military)," despite the fact that the UNDP numbers DID include military deaths. Where did you ever get the idea that they didn't? It didn't come from anywhere but your own head. If you just didn't know what the number represented, you should have asked. Instead, you jumped to a wrong conclusion. And I called you an idiot for that.

Well now, I was just looking over your original post (post #15 in this thread) and it certainly seems to me that for some reason you do not want to consider the deaths of people in the Iraqi military to be included in the death counts of the nation of Iraq. You stated that I was using data that was "outdated and inaccurate" and then you immediately went on to the issue of Iraqi military deaths even though the data I used was more accurate and more current than the data you relied on.

If I misinterpeted meaning, then perhaps it is time that you wrote your posts a bit clearer.

No, I'm afraid it was simple laziness on my part. Laziness is a sin I will freely admit to.

Thanks for admitting at least one of your obvious sins!

See above issue with post #15, for example.

Really, Crossbow. When you want to insult my intelligence, please, please, PLEASE try to at least show a modicum of creativity. That insult was simply tedious to read. It was flat and uninspired, the sort of retort you'd expect from a flustered second grader. I'm sure you're capable of doing better. Here, I'll even give you an example:

"I wouldn't expect better logic from Ziggurat, since he's only just made the transition from punching those burger and fries pictures on the cash register to actually stringing together letters on a real keyboard to form words. One step at a time, Zig."

See? Isn't that so much more biting, and interesting to read too? Now you give it a try. Just remember: no profanities. If you have to resort to profanities to insult someone, it just means you don't have the right number of chromosomes.

That is true enough! I am not very creative when it comes to issuing insults and if you want to follow my posts, then I am afraid that it is something that you will have to get accustomed to.

As for me, I prefer to work and think, and avoid your qualities of stupidity, ignorance, arrogance, anger, and laziness. While I am sure that your qualities have enabled you to develop considerable skills with creative insults (as your excellent example shows), however if I were to share your qualities then I would be brought down to your level and that is place that I do not wish to be (creative insulting skills notwithstanding). So thank you and I hope that you understand.