|
|
 | | From: | caterbro at my-deja.com | | Subject: | Re: We Are All Torturers Now | | Date: | 22 Jan 2005 01:06:18 -0800 |
|
|
 |
>can see, you're at the top of their list, Carl.
well, fuck, that's not special- I'm at the top of falwell's list, the
top of the State Police
list, the FBI would doubtless see me "detained" for safety reasons:
the first against the wall when the revolution comes: i can frankly
engender the killing frenzy of the Hindoo, the local white power
movement would raise a glass at my funeral; I imagine, in my conceit,
that I am the bane of every form of pernicious bullshit out there, and
gladly so.
look, let me put this in perspective, okay? I would be murdered and
burned in christian areas of Africa for some of the things i say on a
daily basis. please.
>The 'comparative fact' is that they've made war on everyone with whom
>they've come in contact, and we're at the top of *that* list, buddy.
no, that's *a* fact. then you get some others and "compare them".
>It's staring at you.
>whatever it is that motivates you is not consistent throughout the
>world.
>It's not economic, or they wouldn't be making war on poor people.
that IS economic;
>It isn't political, or they wouldn't be making war on every competing
system, or
>on different systems.
that IS politics;
>It isn't racial,
it most certainly IS:
>it isn't 'social';
it is nothing but;
>it's religious.
that too.
>Do you detect a pattern there, Mr. Researcher?
yes, the world is a hard and bitter place, and if you are lucky enough
to be born on the winning side, then all those crazy fuckers who talk
about reason, knowledge and peaceable resolution need to killed so you
can focus on the REAL problem; the Other who stands before you.
that is the pattern.
gee, Chas, you are an old freek, a mad old bastard with no regrets, why
not stand up for a better way, (despite it's inevitable martyrdom)?
instead of, you know, the usual bullshit.
>You remind me of art historians that ascribe political/social
>motivations to artists' choices without knowing that it's just because
'blue' is
>cheap.
and you remind me of dudes who say "i dunno shit about art, but i know
what i like"
>I notice there's no refutation.
>Tell me that muslims are fighting in the Filipines over 'oil',
nationalism.
>or destroying rhe Bamiyans because of resentment against Western
decadence,
cultural predudice
>killing non-muslims in Indonesia because of foreign warriors on Holy
Land in
>SA,
business as usual.
>or practicing genocidal war against the tribalists of the Sudan in
protest
tribal, racial war.
> >except that's NOT what happened. in their eyes, we just spent a
decade
> >abusing a regional collaborator for not toeing the line
>'toeing' what 'line'?
in 1991, the US was just finishing tense negotiations to prevent
another OPEC embargo, and had just completed a 250b project to make
Saudi Arabia our local war platform. Saddam figured he could get
revenge on kuwait and offer the US a wholly modernized partner in the
area, so he jumped. he was wrong- we got to test our gear and platform
and remove the need for cooperation wholesale. he got screwed. he had
spent the last twenty years fightng to please the US, aiming to be a
modern state, and we cut him down in order to ensure that we did not
have to deal with modern states.
that is the plain, hard truth. and the architect of this policy is our
VP today. no lie.
>What?
>The UN and his European buddies made the money off the people of Iraq.
take a guess, a wild guess, on the nationality of the company the
benefited the most from the O4F corruption. and guess who got 85% of
that oil? it wasn't china.
>'Imperial ambition'?
>When we impose something, it's 'freedom'; it's 'egalitarian'; it's
>'protection of the minority'.
fucking please. pull the other one, that leg's getting a little sore.
do you think for an INSTANT that any Iraqi gov't that gets elected will
nationalize resources or security? or do ONE SINGLE THING that the US
don't like? garbage.
>'Bald Treachery' is the stuff of Middle Eastern politics;
look, they think we're odd; libya killed and threatened, and we did
nothing; iran killed and threatened, and we negotiated- they look at
this and think we are weak. saddam kissed our ass and killed millions
in an endless war to please us, and we fucked him like a lovedoll. what
fucking message would that send to YOU?
ac
>The idea that we're some sort of 'parfait knight', acting from a pure
and
>moral heart,
I'd settle for common sense.
carl
|
|
| | From: | Chas | | Subject: | Re: We Are All Torturers Now | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:25:16 -0700 |
|
|
| wrote
>>can see, you're at the top of their list, Carl.
>......I imagine, in my conceit,
> that I am the bane of every form of pernicious bullshit out there, and
> gladly so.
Sure- and you seem to make small differentiation between lists that include
you and three other guys with ones that include most of the human race.
> look, let me put this in perspective, okay? I would be murdered and
> burned in christian areas of Africa for some of the things i say on a
> daily basis. please.
That's your idea of 'perspective'???
You could be murdered and burned in Africa for liking gorillas too much, or
not being named Tutsi, or falling out of the Muslim slave line.
>>The 'comparative fact' is that they've made war on everyone with whom
>>they've come in contact, and we're at the top of *that* list, buddy.
> no, that's *a* fact. then you get some others and "compare them".
'made war on everyone' is a pretty salient fact, Carl.
You may want to affect some objective perspective with no partisanship for
your own, but it is sufficient for me that they've declared me an enemy for
me to take sides- intellectually dishonest tho' that may be.
>>It's not economic, or they wouldn't be making war on poor people.
> that IS economic;
No; they're making war regardless of the economic environment.
>>It isn't political, or they wouldn't be making war on every competing
> system, or
>>on different systems.
> that IS politics;
no; the Caliphate is administered under a number of political models- and
they war on whatever non-muslim model they encounter.
>>It isn't racial,
> it most certainly IS:
Nope- they'll make war on anyone they run across- race is not a criteria for
having them as an enemy or a friend.
>>it isn't 'social';
> it is nothing but;
nope; consistant throughout any cultural overlay. Islam is 'the same' as
practiced by Filipino Moros as it is by Sudanese slavetraders.
>>it's religious.
> that too.
Not 'too'.
Only.
> yes, the world is a hard and bitter place, and if you are lucky enough
> to be born on the winning side, then all those crazy fuckers who talk
> about reason, knowledge and peaceable resolution need to killed so you
> can focus on the REAL problem; the Other who stands before you.
geez; the iconoclast as martyr-
give me a fucking break.
If you're going to fuck with the bull, you can't resent the horn.
> gee, Chas, you are an old freek, a mad old bastard with no regrets,
yessir- probably the picture in the attic for your Dorian Grey.
I may not go down in history, but I'll go down on your little sister.
> why
> not stand up for a better way, (despite it's inevitable martyrdom)?
> instead of, you know, the usual bullshit.
Because it isn't the 'usual bullshit'.
There is no movement in history that compares; no threat, no ideology, no
greater divide between peoples.
'Muslims' are something I know something about. I've lived in muslim
countries; I study a 'muslim' martial art; I'm around muslims in various
contexts; I've studied the religion and practiced a (somewhat esoteric)
variant discipline.
They're the scariest motherfuckers on the face of the earth, and make no
mistake about it.
It doen't make any difference what you are if you're not them.
> and you remind me of dudes who say "i dunno shit about art, but i know
> what i like"
Look around and see what's hanging on the wall, Carl.
If you have to explain it, it's not art.
>>I notice there's no refutation.
>>Tell me that muslims are fighting in the Filipines over 'oil',
> nationalism.
Nope.
That's what defines the difference between 'Northern' and 'Southern' styles
of FMA too, buddy- North is Catholic; South is Muslim. There are 12,000
islands, fifty languages, a half-dozen ethnic groups.
Their divisions are entirely religious.
>>or destroying rhe Bamiyans because of resentment against Western
> decadence,
> cultural predudice
religious tenet.
number one, they don't do representative 'holy art'- you'll notice that
Mohammed is veiled in all representations of him, and most art is either
geometric or very stylized foliage.
They also don't tolerate art from other religions.
It's not 'cultural'; it's religious.
>>killing non-muslims in Indonesia because of foreign warriors on Holy
> Land in
>>SA,
> business as usual.
Yes; killing people on the basis of being non-muslim.
Business as usual until you're the non-muslim they pick.
>>or practicing genocidal war against the tribalists of the Sudan in
> protest
> tribal, racial war.
Islam against the tribalists/animist-shamanist/Christians and Communists.
Entirely religious.
>>'toeing' what 'line'?
> in 1991, the US was just finishing tense negotiations to prevent
> another OPEC embargo,
That would be as in 'oil as a strategic weapon of international policy'?
> and had just completed a 250b project to make
> Saudi Arabia our local war platform.
As in protecting access to the strategic weapon above cited?
> Saddam figured he could get
> revenge on kuwait and offer the US a wholly modernized partner in the
> area, so he jumped.
Well; yeah- understanding that it wasn't just the US that he was
contemplating doing business with so he could indulge Udai and Kusai.
> he was wrong-
He was already the largest standing army in the region. He was fighting with
the Kurds in the North, Iran to his East, plotting on SA and buddying up
with Syria.
That didn't get your attention?
> we got to test our gear and platform
> and remove the need for cooperation wholesale. he got screwed.
*He* got screwed???
Saddam has become progressively megalomaniacal. That's pretty indisputable,
neh? I see no justification for his continuing rule inherent in his mere
tenancy in the Office by Strong-Man Rule.
> he had
> spent the last twenty years fightng to please the US, aiming to be a
> modern state, and we cut him down in order to ensure that we did not
> have to deal with modern states.
Oh fibbit, Carl.
Saddam as the 'modern state'?
puh-leeze.
> that is the plain, hard truth. and the architect of this policy is our
> VP today. no lie.
My antipathy towards our various enemies isn't predicated on supporting the
thieving cocksuckers in office. Whatever our domestic problems, we have a
world-wide enemy who has initiated on their own. They don't give a fart in a
sandstorm about Dick Cheney.
>>What?
>>The UN and his European buddies made the money off the people of Iraq.
> take a guess, a wild guess, on the nationality of the company the
> benefited the most from the O4F corruption. and guess who got 85% of
> that oil? it wasn't china.
Multi-national.
I'm not going to justify the actions of corporate entities either. They're
no more ideological than a street whore, and have no allegiances- only
conveniences.
Oh yeah; and did anyone get that oil for free, as tribute to the Empire?
>>When we impose something, it's 'freedom'; it's 'egalitarian'; it's
>>'protection of the minority'.
> fucking please. pull the other one, that leg's getting a little sore.
> do you think for an INSTANT that any Iraqi gov't that gets elected will
> nationalize resources or security?
You mean 'again'?
I happen to think that the whole idea of 'Iraq' won't work. It's never been
any kind of 'unified'.
In terms of realpolitik, better to deal with the pirates that sell you their
loot than be on the ship they just burned and sank.
> or do ONE SINGLE THING that the US
> don't like? garbage.
why would they do something we 'don't like'?
Do you mean something like making war on Israel? Trading for nuclear weapons
from the former SovUn? Allying with Syria?
What would you like to see them do that the US wouldn't approve of?
> look, they think we're odd; libya killed and threatened, and we did
> nothing;
Yeah; I wondered about that myself.
Hell; I don't know why Scotland didn't send a team o'bray bhoys to kill his
peckerwood ass just for wearing a dress and accidentally hitting Lockerbie
with a plane.
> iran killed and threatened, and we negotiated-
and funded Saddam to go kill a half-million of them.
Lucky ol' Iran.
> they look at
> this and think we are weak.
yeah; reticent to torture, considerate of collateral damage, restrict the
war to active combatants as a general policy; squeamish about beheadings,
ritual defilement of the body and burning or hanging from the bridge over
the freeway-
Just think how surprised they'll be when we finally get mad at them and take
them back to *our* cultural heritage in the spirit of the diversity of the
richness of the human tapestry.
We don't have all the good land and pretty women by accident, the thin
veneer of pussification notwithstanding.
> saddam kissed our ass and killed millions
> in an endless war to please us,
He was already bent on killing people- our interests just happened to
coincide insofar as Iran.
Same thing with the mujahideen in Afghanistan-
who cares how many of one another they kill if you don't like either of
them?
> and we fucked him like a lovedoll. what
> fucking message would that send to YOU?
When you reach the fork in the road; choose lovedoll, because you're going
to take the Big Green Weenie in either case?
Remember that the alternative to 'lovedoll' is 'GI Joe Aggressor'.
> I'd settle for common sense.
I thought you were touting idealism just a moment ago.
Common sense would dictate that we just go in, do the deed and leave them
sitting around a camel-dung fire talking about what the Great Satan just did
to them; let them ride a donkey over to the chain link fence around the oil
fields in order to find an electric light to study English by at night.
Chas
|
|
|
