Thunderstruck

[jimnyc]

Knowing that terrorists and scumbags are on the receiving end of this display of force makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside! :)

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lsmXLGKdkW4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Another cool video, telling us more about the beast known as the Black Hawk

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WYktDap2vJE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

And this sucker is awesome too, the Apache Longbow!!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/26eqFN1BB70" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Too bad that Hamas doesnt get a good taste of what those weapon systems can do!
Maybe it would limit how many rockets they get to launch to murder Israeli civilians.
We should be generous and just give Israel a couple dozen of those babies. Tell 'em to give Iran a good taste too. Tyr

[James]

Knowing that terrorists and scumbags are on the receiving end of this display of force makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside! :)

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lsmXLGKdkW4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

Sorry if I don't share your enthusiasm. It makes me sad that the US has devolved into a nation that values the absurd displays of force we heap upon enemies.

[jimnyc]

Sorry if I don't share your enthusiasm. It makes me sad that the US has devolved into a nation that values the absurd displays of force we heap upon enemies.

No need to apologize, it's cool if you disagree. I'm just happy AND proud that we have the strongest military in the world with the best technology. And when that might gets used against terrorists and other known enemies, I am thrilled and make zero apologies for that.

[James]

No need to apologize, it's cool if you disagree. I'm just happy AND proud that we have the strongest military in the world with the best technology. And when that might gets used against terrorists and other known enemies, I am thrilled and make zero apologies for that.

Do you share that elation when using it against civilians and when toppling regimes that don't serve this country's interests? From a moral perspective, we've failed as a global police force and, thus, will continue on as is. ;)

[jimnyc]

Do you share that elation when using it against civilians and when toppling regimes that don't serve this country's interests? From a moral perspective, we've failed as a global police force and, thus, will continue on as is. ;)

I don't believe we target civilians, but they are an unfortunate casualty in war. And if dictators and killers in other countries are busy killing their own citizens or neighbors, I don't have an issue watching them get toppled. But these are 2 separate subjects. I was championing our military, and they simply follow orders. One could love the military and technology and still disagree with the things you point out.

[aboutime]

Sorry if I don't share your enthusiasm. It makes me sad that the US has devolved into a nation that values the absurd displays of force we heap upon enemies.


Hard to believe someone who seems to condone, and even studies anarchists would have something negative to say like this.

By the way. The US hasn't devolved any more than any other nation with displays of force. If we didn't have the capabilities. YOU might not be able to enjoy talking about it, either way.

[James]

I don't believe we target civilians, but they are an unfortunate casualty in war. And if dictators and killers in other countries are busy killing their own citizens or neighbors, I don't have an issue watching them get toppled. But these are 2 separate subjects. I was championing our military, and they simply follow orders. One could love the military and technology and still disagree with the things you point out.

Yes, I suppose we can debate military history later on(In the meantime, I recommend you do some reading in to Vietnam and our conflicts within Central America.) My original post was merely meant as a critique of the ethics behind our cultural idealization of the use of force.

[James]

Hard to believe someone who seems to condone, and even studies anarchists would have something negative to say like this.

By the way. The US hasn't devolved any more than any other nation with displays of force. If we didn't have the capabilities. YOU might not be able to enjoy talking about it, either way.

I do seemed to have made you angry. How childish to be so bothered by another's belief system.

Briefly, one of the primary reason I embrace AC is my opposition to this country's past use of military.

[aboutime]

I do seemed to have made you angry. How childish to be so bothered by another's belief system.

Briefly, one of the primary reason I embrace AC is my opposition to this country's past use of military.


And you have every right to voice your opinion here. But the phony excuse..."opposition to this country's past use of military" is actually laughable. Considering your statement about embracing AC.

[SassyLady]

Sorry if I don't share your enthusiasm. It makes me sad that the US has devolved into a nation that values the absurd displays of force we heap upon enemies.

When we live in a world that only respects power, then it behooves one to have more power if they want to stay at the top of the food chain.

It makes me sad that there are still people in the world that want to bring America to her knees ... which necessitates using force on our "enemies". If they were not "enemies" we would not have to use force, now would we?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

When we live in a world that only respects power, then it behooves one to have more power if they want to stay at the top of the food chain.

It makes me sad that there are still people in the world that want to bring America to her knees ... which necessitates using force on our "enemies". If they were not "enemies" we would not have to use force, now would we?

And Sassy, that is the one line that defeats all the talk coming from liberals/leftists and anti-American haters of all stripes!!! That they present we haven't the right to defend ourselves while they promote everybody else's right to do so! Which is silly as hell. Next they toss out but its unfair that we have the best weapons! As if the concept of winning and surviving do not exist ! The hypocrisy is simply off the charts on that reasoning. When enemies want to kill you and kill/enslave your family the ideal that fairness and equality within the fight are of importance is ridiculous.. As your quote so rightly stated..-:beer:--Tyr

[CSM]

Sorry if I don't share your enthusiasm. It makes me sad that the US has devolved into a nation that values the absurd displays of force we heap upon enemies.


Hmm ... I suppose the US as a nation should value the displays of force our enemies wish to heap upon us. In truth, there are many who do exactly that. Yes, there are many who celebrated the attack on Pearl Harbor, the destruction of the Twin Towers on 911 and still celebrate every time some terrorist launches a missile, sets off an IED or saws the head off an innocent. Yeah, it makes one sad.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I do seemed to have made you angry. How childish to be so bothered by another's belief system.

Briefly, one of the primary reason I embrace AC is my opposition to this country's past use of military.

Our past use of military has been what has kept the wolves at bay around the world. Its what has maintained our survival and that of much less powerful nations! Hardly a bad or trivial course of action IMHO seeing that its kept hundreds of millions from being murdered or enslaved !--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hmm ... I suppose the US as a nation should value the displays of force our enemies wish to heap upon us. In truth, there are many who do exactly that. Yes, there are many who celebrated the attack on Pearl Harbor, the destruction of the Twin Towers on 911 and still celebrate every time some terrorist launches a missile, sets off an IED or saws the head off an innocent. Yeah, it makes one sad.

Yes sad and many of us it has pissed the hell off. They had better worry about the ones that got pissed!!
I've been that way ever since 911 and with me it increases everyday instead of waning!!! -Tyr

[Drummond]

And you have every right to voice your opinion here. But the phony excuse..."opposition to this country's past use of military" is actually laughable. Considering your statement about embracing AC.

How far do you take that 'opposition', anyway ?

Perhaps we can have our friend's view on World War 2 more generally ? Perhaps a certain maniac with a toothbrush moustache and anti-Semitic hatreds much beloved by the Arab World, should've not received the military opposition from the US that he (and his 'Reich') so richly deserved ?

There are evils in the world in dire need of remedy, and to deny the means by which that remedy is meted out is to invite disaster.

I suppose, in the face of the Cold War, it was America's 'duty' to knuckle under to a Soviet arms superiority ?

[mundame]

When we live in a world that only respects power, then it behooves one to have more power if they want to stay at the top of the food chain.

It makes me sad that there are still people in the world that want to bring America to her knees ... which necessitates using force on our "enemies". If they were not "enemies" we would not have to use force, now would we?


What I have been thinking for fully ten years now is that we don't kill nearly enough enemies. If we are going to have a war, WIN it and go home. Winning it means bombing and bludgeoning and destroying enough of the enemy, on their own land! that they are forced to give up and do what we tell them. Which is usually a LOT more civilized that the bad stuff they've been doing, as with rewriting the Japanese Constitution for them. They needed that; they were into the Rape of Nanking and other incredible war crimes.

Instead, we do social work wars for a long, long time --- an effort at "security colonization," I suppose, that so far has failed every time. This is like communism in the sense that how many times do we have to try it to see it's a method that does not work? Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan: in all three cases we went in and tried to be their newest bestest wittle friendsies (but they all hate us, of course). And then after ten years of totally losing all the time and driving our nation into deficit and recession in every case, we withdraw, having lost. Ten years, LOST!

We need more Dresdens. Assuming we seriously need a war, which we certainly did not need most of the little brushfire junk. If we really need a war for defense, go in there and bomb them to broken cinder blocks on every street! Let whoever is left think about that for a few centuries. Iran is the only candidate, I hope, that we have for that right now, and I sure hope we aren't going to do a stupid social-work war on them when we finally decide to fight them.

Either fight an actual war and win, or don't go over there at all. One or the other. No more long, losing social-work wars.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What I have been thinking for fully ten years now is that we don't kill nearly enough enemies. If we are going to have a war, WIN it and go home. Winning it means bombing and bludgeoning and destroying enough of the enemy, on their own land! that they are forced to give up and do what we tell them. Which is usually a LOT more civilized that the bad stuff they've been doing, as with rewriting the Japanese Constitution for them. They needed that; they were into the Rape of Nanking and other incredible war crimes.

Instead, we do social work wars for a long, long time --- an effort at "security colonization," I suppose, that so far has failed every time. This is like communism in the sense that how many times do we have to try it to see it's a method that does not work? Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan: in all three cases we went in and tried to be their newest bestest wittle friendsies (but they all hate us, of course). And then after ten years of totally losing all the time and driving our nation into deficit and recession in every case, we withdraw, having lost. Ten years, LOST!

We need more Dresdens. Assuming we seriously need a war, which we certainly did not need most of the little brushfire junk. If we really need a war for defense, go in there and bomb them to broken cinder blocks on every street! Let whoever is left think about that for a few centuries. Iran is the only candidate, I hope, that we have for that right now, and I sure hope we aren't going to do a stupid social-work war on them when we finally decide to fight them.

Either fight an actual war and win, or don't go over there at all. One or the other. No more long, losing social-work wars.

That's been my mantra for a long time! I hate how we have been fighting wars with the concept of "winning over the enemy" (a liberal concept) rather than destroying to enemy to win the war and secure peace! -Tyr

[NightTrain]

Sorry if I don't share your enthusiasm. It makes me sad that the US has devolved into a nation that values the absurd displays of force we heap upon enemies.


The very fact that the US values "absurd displays of force" is the very same reason you've never had to experience a foreign power roll though your neck of the woods destroying everything you enjoy, like your mom's basement, your xbox and her hybrid collection.

There's lots of bad guys in the world who would love to do just that. The only thing that prevents that is our military.

[James]

The very fact that the US values "absurd displays of force" is the very same reason you've never had to experience a foreign power roll though your neck of the woods destroying everything you enjoy, like your mom's basement, your xbox and her hybrid collection.

There's lots of bad guys in the world who would love to do just that. The only thing that prevents that is our military.

Yes, I do this this country's military has it's uses. I don't however, condone going to war using Winston Churchill's destructive ideas as justification, nor do I support killing civilians as a military tactic.

[SassyLady]

Yes, I do this this country's military has it's uses. I don't however, condone going to war using Winston Churchill's destructive ideas as justification, nor do I support killing civilians as a military tactic.

Why do you assume that we support killing civilians as a military tactic?

[jafar00]

Why do you assume that we support killing civilians as a military tactic?

Well, the fact that you have killed so many civilians as a military tactic comes to mind. Calling them "collateral damage" doesn't lessen the crime at all.

[NightTrain]

Yes, I do this this country's military has it's uses. I don't however, condone going to war using Winston Churchill's destructive ideas as justification, nor do I support killing civilians as a military tactic.


LOL

So, you obviously think that Chamberlain had the right idea.

[NightTrain]

Well, the fact that you have killed so many civilians as a military tactic comes to mind. Calling them "collateral damage" doesn't lessen the crime at all.


Police your own muslims and we won't have to.

Problem solved.

Our Daisy Cutters and MOABS are expensive, you know.

[James]

Why do you assume that we support killing civilians as a military tactic?

Oh, so then you're denying that civilians were slaughtered by Americans during our war on the Sadinistas? Interesting.

[SassyLady]

Well, the fact that you have killed so many civilians as a military tactic comes to mind. Calling them "collateral damage" doesn't lessen the crime at all.


Targeting civilians is vastly different than collateral damage.

[SassyLady]

Oh, so then you're denying that civilians were slaughtered by Americans during our war on the Sadinistas? Interesting.

Where did I say that? I was not aware that Americans fought a war against the Sandinista. When was that "war" waged?

Civilians are always casualties of war ... but intentionally slaughtering them? Can you provide links proving that it is American policy to slaughter civilians?

[James]

Where did I say that? I was not aware that Americans fought a war against the Sandinista. When was that "war" waged?

Civilians are always casualties of war ... but intentionally slaughtering them? Can you provide links proving that it is American policy to slaughter civilians?

I recommend you do some of your own research. I remember reading it in one of Chomsky's older works - I believe the work as a whole criticized the use of state terrorism. :eek:

Even wikipedia has a page on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front#Sandinista_ru le_.281979.E2.80.931990.29

Essentially what happened was a regime(Somoza, I think it was) fell and the Sadinistas took control. The US then provided a brutal resistance against them that included the mass slaughter of civilians.

[SassyLady]

I recommend you do some of your own research. I remember reading it in one of Chomsky's older works - I believe the work as a whole criticized the use of state terrorism. :eek:

Even wikipedia has a page on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front#Sandinista_ru le_.281979.E2.80.931990.29

Essentially what happened was a regime(Somoza, I think it was) fell and the Sadinistas took control. The US then provided a brutal resistance against them that included the mass slaughter of civilians.

If you come here making a statement, then it is you that needs to provide the proof. It is not my place to prove you wrong. I just asked you to enlighten me to something that I have not heard of. I merely asked you to provide links that would prove that Americans went into Nicaragua and slaughtered civilians. I truly do not remember ever having been at war with the Sandinista.

PS ... you remind me of someone who used to post here .... Agnopostate.

[James]

If you come here making a statement, then it is you that needs to provide the proof. It is not my place to prove you wrong. I just asked you to enlighten me to something that I have not heard of. I merely asked you to provide links that would prove that Americans went into Nicaragua and slaughtered civilians. I truly do not remember ever having been at war with the Sandinista.

Yes, that is interesting. Why has the US news-media ignored the happenings in Central America? From the Sadinistas, to Chavez, the bulk of what's gone on there has been largely ignored by the media. Why do you think that is? ;)

[SassyLady]

Yes, that is interesting. Why has the US news-media ignored the happenings in Central America? From the Sadinistas, to Chavez, the bulk of what's gone on there has been largely ignored by the media. Why do you think that is? ;)

Because it didn't happen?

[James]

Because it didn't happen?

I'm sorry, but you think the media has covered the two aforementioned regimes? :laugh:

[SassyLady]

I'm sorry, but you think the media has covered the two aforementioned regimes? :laugh:

I haven't said what I "think". Merely asking you to prove what you are asserting....seems simple enough.

James, are you from Central America?

[James]

I haven't said what I "think". Merely asking you to prove what you are asserting....seems simple enough.

James, are you from Central America?

Okay, for both claims:
1. I'm not going to go back and find, cite and further research a Chomsky article I read months ago, solely for the purpose of an online debate. Don't be ridiculous.
2. The second "claim" was more of a question for you.

[SassyLady]

Okay, for both claims:
1. I'm not going to go back and find, cite and further research a Chomsky article I read months ago, solely for the purpose of an online debate. Don't be ridiculous.
2. The second "claim" was more of a question for you.

1. So, you just assume an article written by Chomsky is irrefutable? Interesting.
2. I never trust one source for information, nor drive-by posters on a message board.

[James]

1. So, you just assume an article written by Chomsky is irrefutable? Interesting.
2. I never trust one source for information, nor drive-by posters on a message board.

I'm not aware of what'll result of this 'conversation', but here's what I do know:

1. Chomsky has repeatedly published attacks on the US government.
2. At one point, the man even declared every president since the end of the second world war a "war criminal".
3. Chomsky maintains his position as a professor at MIT.
4. To my knowledge, there has been no successful legal action against Chomsky, as of yet.

Here's what that tells me. Even after publicly accusing the US government of countless crimes against humanity, Noam Chomsky has retained his credibility. Which means one of two things: He's either right, or not perceived as a threat by the government. The latter would be funny, given this article I dug up:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_won_--_for_now_20120917/

Next, just because you don't know of something doesn't make it a lie. What happened in Nicaragua is common knowledge - I'm not to blame for you being so blatantly ignorant that it takes a "drive-by poster on a message board" to teach you basic history.

Happy new year, SassyLady. :p

[SassyLady]

I'm not aware of what'll result of this 'conversation', but here's what I do know:

1. Chomsky has repeatedly published attacks on the US government.
2. At one point, the man even declared every president since the end of the second world war a "war criminal".
3. Chomsky maintains his position as a professor at MIT.
4. To my knowledge, there has been no successful legal action against Chomsky, as of yet.

Here's what that tells me. Even after publicly accusing the US government of countless crimes against humanity, Noam Chomsky has retained his credibility. Which means one of two things: He's either right, or not perceived as a threat by the government. The latter would be funny, given this article I dug up:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_won_--_for_now_20120917/

Next, just because you don't know of something doesn't make it a lie. What happened in Nicaragua is common knowledge - I'm not to blame for you being so blatantly ignorant that it takes a "drive-by poster on a message board" to teach you basic history.

Happy new year, SassyLady. :p

Silly boy, of course I know what happened in Nicaragua ... just never heard anyone refer to it as "slaughter of civilians by American military" or infer that America was at war with the Sandinista.

As for Chomsky .... never liked the man or his ideology.

[Gaffer]

I'm not aware of what'll result of this 'conversation', but here's what I do know:

1. Chomsky has repeatedly published attacks on the US government.
2. At one point, the man even declared every president since the end of the second world war a "war criminal".
3. Chomsky maintains his position as a professor at MIT.
4. To my knowledge, there has been no successful legal action against Chomsky, as of yet.

Here's what that tells me. Even after publicly accusing the US government of countless crimes against humanity, Noam Chomsky has retained his credibility. Which means one of two things: He's either right, or not perceived as a threat by the government. The latter would be funny, given this article I dug up:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_won_--_for_now_20120917/

Next, just because you don't know of something doesn't make it a lie. What happened in Nicaragua is common knowledge - I'm not to blame for you being so blatantly ignorant that it takes a "drive-by poster on a message board" to teach you basic history.

Happy new year, SassyLady. :p

Chomsky's freedom of speech was protected by, of all things, the first amendment. So he couldn't very well be prosecuted for anything he said or published. So that argument is shot down before it's even raised.

The Sandinista were a bunch of vicious communist thugs, that were not voted into anything. They took power. They were opposed by the Contra who fought basically a civil war with them. The US supported the Contra with aid and weapons, not with troops. And the slaughter of civilians was done by the Sandinista. You really need to get all the facts and not rely solely on one communist propagandist for your information.

We are dealing with agna's mentor here guys. The big fish has come to the surface.

[James]

Chomsky's freedom of speech was protected by, of all things, the first amendment. So he couldn't very well be prosecuted for anything he said or published. So that argument is shot down before it's even raised.

The Sandinista were a bunch of vicious communist thugs, that were not voted into anything. They took power. They were opposed by the Contra who fought basically a civil war with them. The US supported the Contra with aid and weapons, not with troops. And the slaughter of civilians was done by the Sandinista. You really need to get all the facts and not rely solely on one communist propagandist for your information.

We are dealing with agna's mentor here guys. The big fish has come to the surface.

The same thing could be said about you. I never said the Sadinistas were voted in to power, seeing that they were a revolutionary group by nature - they were kind of like the POUM, or the Bolsheviks, in that regard.

I don't know how you define "communist thug", but I'd love to hear you out.

As for the Contras, you're right and you're wrong. I perhaps misspoke when saying that Americans killed civilians - you're wrong when saying it wasn't the Contras - but if the Contras were trained by the Americans, armed by the Americans and given a directive by the Americans, the Americans killed civilians.

From another Author(William Blum) "The contras' brutality earned them a wide notoriety. They regularly destroyed health centers, schools, agricultural cooperatives, and community centers - symbols of the Sadinistas' social programs in rural areas. People caught in these assaults were often tortured and killed in the most gruesome ways. One example reported by The Gaurdian of London suffices. In the words of a survivor of a raid in Jinotega province, which borders Honduras:"

The rest is too gruesome to post here, but you can look up the Google preview of Killing Hope.

[NightTrain]

Chomsky's freedom of speech was protected by, of all things, the first amendment. So he couldn't very well be prosecuted for anything he said or published. So that argument is shot down before it's even raised.

The Sandinista were a bunch of vicious communist thugs, that were not voted into anything. They took power. They were opposed by the Contra who fought basically a civil war with them. The US supported the Contra with aid and weapons, not with troops. And the slaughter of civilians was done by the Sandinista. You really need to get all the facts and not rely solely on one communist propagandist for your information.

We are dealing with agna's mentor here guys. The big fish has come to the surface.


I don't know, Gaffer... this one seems even more muddled than AngryProstate did. And he certainly doesn't know history.

But he does share the willingness to take Chomsky's commie drivel as gospel, which seems curious.

Could this new lad be one of AP's students?

[James]

I don't know, Gaffer... this one seems even more muddled than AngryProstate did. And he certainly doesn't know history.

But he does share the willingness to take Chomsky's commie drivel as gospel, which seems curious.

Could this new lad be one of AP's students?

Funny you would say that.

I proved him wrong on the bit about the Contras killing civilians.
I never denied that the Sandinistas forcibly took power, or that they killed civilians.
I admitted my error of saying Americans as opposed to American sponsored troops.

[NightTrain]

From another Author(William Blum) "The contras' brutality earned them a wide notoriety. They regularly destroyed health centers, schools, agricultural cooperatives, and community centers - symbols of the Sadinistas' social programs in rural areas. People caught in these assaults were often tortured and killed in the most gruesome ways. One example reported by The Gaurdian of London suffices. In the words of a survivor of a raid in Jinotega province, which borders Honduras:"


William Blum?

He's an interesting little toadie, too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012001971.html



The author noted "Rogue State" had been published in Arabic in Egypt and Lebanon. And perhaps bin Laden owns the entire Blum canon, because the quote he cited actually is not in "Rogue State," but on the back cover of a collection of Blum essays, "Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire."

Nothing like having bin Laden to give you props.


Until now, the mainstream media have paid virtually no attention to Blum. His books rarely are reviewed. But Noam Chomsky has praised his work, and Blum is right there along with Steve Earle, Jane Fonda and Barbara Ehrenreich as a signer of a full-page ad in the New York Times in the fall of 2002 against the military buildup for war in Iraq.

Yes indeed. Very illustrious and patriotic Americans standing with him and his work.

[Gaffer]

Since most of the media is socialist these days, the Guardian being in the forefront, perhaps you should look into some other sources. I don't make a habit of reading communist propagandists either, unless I have to as a matter of knowing my enemy.

Any communist working for the elites is a thug. A tool that just follows orders for good of the whole. They are vicious and uncaring. And I have seen what they do to those that oppose them or who represent a threat to them. I have personally seen things. When they have control you have to take them out anyway possible and that often means innocent people get hurt and killed, but these thugs use those people to hide behind and as propaganda, just as the jihadist do today. Where do you think the jihadist learned their methods?

A communist is a communist, no matter what other names you attach to them.

In what part of the hierarchy of communism do you picture yourself? I asked this question before. Communism is a pyramid scheme with certain elites on top, all continually vying for power over each other and everyone beneath them scraping by and providing support for their beloved comrades above.

[jimnyc]

Oh, so then you're denying that civilians were slaughtered by Americans during our war on the Sadinistas? Interesting.


Funny you would say that.

I proved him wrong on the bit about the Contras killing civilians.
I never denied that the Sandinistas forcibly took power, or that they killed civilians.
I admitted my error of saying Americans as opposed to American sponsored troops.



Then show irrefutable proof that Americans targeted civilians over there, or gave a directive of sorts and supported the targeting of civilians. PROOF. Don't try dancing, or citing an author without really citing him, or saying we supplied arms and that is all the proof we need... In almost EVERY war there are unfortunately innocent civilians killed, and very rarely are they purposely targeted. So rare, that without your irrefutable proof, I will think you're just making shit up for effect. Kinda like Palestinians who will take bodies and toss bread all around them and then claim a military targeted civilians waiting on line for a bakery. Lame is lame.

[Abbey Marie]

Police your own muslims and we won't have to.

Problem solved.

Our Daisy Cutters and MOABS are expensive, you know.

Damn, that was a good line. :clap:

Often, the simplest points are best, yet are overlooked.

[Abbey Marie]

Targeting civilians is vastly different than collateral damage.

Yeah, like 9/11, for example.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm not aware of what'll result of this 'conversation', but here's what I do know:

1. Chomsky has repeatedly published attacks on the US government.
2. At one point, the man even declared every president since the end of the second world war a "war criminal".
3. Chomsky maintains his position as a professor at MIT.
4. To my knowledge, there has been no successful legal action against Chomsky, as of yet.

Here's what that tells me. Even after publicly accusing the US government of countless crimes against humanity, Noam Chomsky has retained his credibility. Which means one of two things: He's either right, or not perceived as a threat by the government. The latter would be funny, given this article I dug up:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_won_--_for_now_20120917/

Next, just because you don't know of something doesn't make it a lie. What happened in Nicaragua is common knowledge - I'm not to blame for you being so blatantly ignorant that it takes a "drive-by poster on a message board" to teach you basic history.

Happy new year, SassyLady. :p

#4- That's called freedom of speech. Which btw, is in a very real sense, guarded by our... wait for it... military.
#3- Our universities are not known for firing people for their liberal views, no matter how extreme. Now had he been ultra-conservative, that might be another matter.

[James]

Then show irrefutable proof that Americans targeted civilians over there, or gave a directive of sorts and supported the targeting of civilians. PROOF. Don't try dancing, or citing an author without really citing him, or saying we supplied arms and that is all the proof we need... In almost EVERY war there are unfortunately innocent civilians killed, and very rarely are they purposely targeted. So rare, that without your irrefutable proof, I will think you're just making shit up for effect. Kinda like Palestinians who will take bodies and toss bread all around them and then claim a military targeted civilians waiting on line for a bakery. Lame is lame.

A: Regan supports the financial backing of the Contras.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/
B: Contras consist largely of the brutal and corrupt former dictator, Samoza's, soldiers.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/November/Reagan-Endorses-CIA-Support-of-Nicaraguan-Contras.html
C: Contras place land mines in civilian areas.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/twih-j18.html
D: US Democrats acknowledge the charges - the charges consisting of human rights violations such as mass killings - of hu
man rights advocacy groups and push to prevent renewed funding to the Contras.
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-03-08/news/mn-32283_1_contras
*E: History of the war. Contras commit crimes such as attacks on villages and clinics involving civilian deaths and torture of Sadinista officials. Funding is renewed to the Contras.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/november/nicaragua1981.htm
F: Death toll of 78,000 consists of largely civilian casualties.
http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/nicaragua.htm
G: Killing Hope by William Blum
http://books.google.com/books?id=-IbQvd13uToC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The arguments of conservatives has largely consisted of discrediting my sources, so these should help you all out a bit. You'll be surprised how much information's out there about the brutality of the Contras.

Jim, though we may disagree politically, I don't actually think you're anything less than a decent guy. That said, I've found the constant stream of personal attacks based on my ideology to be indicative of the open intolerance spread throughout your site. I don't intend to leave - as it's kind of fun to have entire threads acting as personal debates between myself and countless other posters - but it's still a little worrisome.
:mad:

[NightTrain]

A: Regan supports the financial backing of the Contras.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/
B: Contras consist largely of the brutal and corrupt former dictator, Samoza's, soldiers.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/November/Reagan-Endorses-CIA-Support-of-Nicaraguan-Contras.html
C: Contras place land mines in civilian areas.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/twih-j18.html
D: US Democrats acknowledge the charges - the charges consisting of human rights violations such as mass killings - of hu
man rights advocacy groups and push to prevent renewed funding to the Contras.
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-03-08/news/mn-32283_1_contras
*E: History of the war. Contras commit crimes such as attacks on villages and clinics involving civilian deaths and torture of Sadinista officials. Funding is renewed to the Contras.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/november/nicaragua1981.htm
F: Death toll of 78,000 consists of largely civilian casualties.
http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/nicaragua.htm
G: Killing Hope by William Blum
http://books.google.com/books?id=-IbQvd13uToC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The arguments of conservatives has largely consisted of discrediting my sources, so these should help you all out a bit. You'll be surprised how much information's out there about the brutality of the Contras.

Jim, though we may disagree politically, I don't actually think you're anything less than a decent guy. That said, I've found the constant stream of personal attacks based on my ideology to be indicative of the open intolerance spread throughout your site. I don't intend to leave - as it's kind of fun to have entire threads acting as personal debates between myself and countless other posters - but it's still a little worrisome.
:mad:



Those links are a little bit better, but not much.

Your commie heroes launched a civil war, and both sides in that fight did things they shouldn't.

Don't you think that it would be fair for you to list the atrocities committed by the Commies? Where's your list of aid provided by the Soviets?

Here's a fun fact for you : The USA has always opposed the spread of communism, especially when it's in our hemisphere. Accept it.

By the way, citing Chomsky or Blum as references is laughable. Thanks for the chuckle.

[James]

Those links are a little bit better, but not much.

Your commie heroes launched a civil war, and both sides in that fight did things they shouldn't.

Don't you think that it would be fair for you to list the atrocities committed by the Commies? Where's your list of aid provided by the Soviets?

Here's a fun fact for you : The USA has always opposed the spread of communism, especially when it's in our hemisphere. Accept it.

By the way, citing Chomsky or Blum as references is laughable. Thanks for the chuckle.

So you're still denying the atrocities committed by the Contras? Look, I'm not saying that the Sadninstas should've stayed in power - they were statist militants - but I find it flat out appalling that you support the use of Samoza's troops(folks that committed crimes against humanity) to achieve that end.

[jimnyc]

A: Regan supports the financial backing of the Contras.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/
B: Contras consist largely of the brutal and corrupt former dictator, Samoza's, soldiers.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/November/Reagan-Endorses-CIA-Support-of-Nicaraguan-Contras.html
C: Contras place land mines in civilian areas.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/twih-j18.html
D: US Democrats acknowledge the charges - the charges consisting of human rights violations such as mass killings - of hu
man rights advocacy groups and push to prevent renewed funding to the Contras.
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-03-08/news/mn-32283_1_contras
*E: History of the war. Contras commit crimes such as attacks on villages and clinics involving civilian deaths and torture of Sadinista officials. Funding is renewed to the Contras.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/november/nicaragua1981.htm
F: Death toll of 78,000 consists of largely civilian casualties.
http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/nicaragua.htm
G: Killing Hope by William Blum
http://books.google.com/books?id=-IbQvd13uToC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The arguments of conservatives has largely consisted of discrediting my sources, so these should help you all out a bit. You'll be surprised how much information's out there about the brutality of the Contras.

Jim, though we may disagree politically, I don't actually think you're anything less than a decent guy. That said, I've found the constant stream of personal attacks based on my ideology to be indicative of the open intolerance spread throughout your site. I don't intend to leave - as it's kind of fun to have entire threads acting as personal debates between myself and countless other posters - but it's still a little worrisome.
:mad:


Well, we allow full freedom of speech here, which yes, allows for some to be intolerant. We have many here that are intolerant of all kinds of subjects, people and ideologies. The "site" is guilty of allowing members to speak freely. Other than that, it's simply some members who appear intolerant to your views. I'm confident that if you posted in the music section, you might hear from other members, or current events which play no part in ideologies, even more. Certain subjects will bring forth opinions from different people. Add in the fact that your position would be somewhat rare in almost all environments. I don't think you're as surprised as you may lead on to. But there IS good news in all of this. YOU have just as many freedoms of them to speak your POV.

As to the subject, I still think you've shown no direct proof. It's the same in Syria, as we have assisted the rebels. And it wouldn't surprise me if US weapons were therefore used on a civilian or more. That by NO means we targeted civilians or supported it. It's simply a byproduct of ANY war and ANY military weaponry support we may give. We sell/give weaponry and more to military of many countries, and to rebels and such. Generally in our best interest and the best interest of our allies, and sometimes the best interest of those seeking freedom and democracy. Anyone in the world would have to be extremely naive to think none of our intel or weaponry could be or was used in the past and had civilians killed. BUT, I still have my original stance, that the US is not actively targeting civilians and that we are not instructing/teaching and similar to others to do so. And we certainly are not sending our military and our massive weaponry to go after civilians, and it was that accusation that more or less got us here. I was pointing out copters and their ammo that is used by our military to stamp out terrorists. You made the leap from there to our military killing/targeting civilians. In fact, your initial comments towards civilians very much so was pointed not only at weaponry, but our military.

[NightTrain]

So you're still denying the atrocities committed by the Contras? Look, I'm not saying that the Sadninstas should've stayed in power - they were statist militants - but I find it flat out appalling that you support the use of Samoza's troops(folks that committed crimes against humanity) to achieve that end.


I've never claimed that the Contras were blameless.

They both did things that they shouldn't have.

Both sides were backed by superpowers fighting a proxy war.

What's your point?

[Gaffer]

Ever notice that no one ever complains about the innocent civilians killed by the russians and those they supported? The innocents killed in Cuba, Angolia, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Columbia, most of central America, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan. Russian finger prints were all over those countries. But it's always the evil USA that's to blame. Even Iraq and Iran were heavily supplied by the Russians. All wars of the late 20th century were soviet inspired and funded. ALL the wars.

Today the remnants of the old soviet system are still at it with support now coming from the kemlin and china. Still the same old enemies supported by the socialist democrats and communist in this country that can't see or think beyond their nose.

[Drummond]

James, this from post #51, posted by NightTrain ...


Don't you think that it would be fair for you to list the atrocities committed by the Commies? Where's your list of aid provided by the Soviets?I, too, would like to see you provide that list. It would help in showing us of your wish to be even-handed, free from focused bias.

[SassyLady]

Well, we allow full freedom of speech here, which yes, allows for some to be intolerant. We have many here that are intolerant of all kinds of subjects, people and ideologies. The "site" is guilty of allowing members to speak freely. Other than that, it's simply some members who appear intolerant to your views. I'm confident that if you posted in the music section, you might hear from other members, or current events which play no part in ideologies, even more. Certain subjects will bring forth opinions from different people. Add in the fact that your position would be somewhat rare in almost all environments. I don't think you're as surprised as you may lead on to. But there IS good news in all of this. YOU have just as many freedoms of them to speak your POV.

As to the subject, I still think you've shown no direct proof. It's the same in Syria, as we have assisted the rebels. And it wouldn't surprise me if US weapons were therefore used on a civilian or more. That by NO means we targeted civilians or supported it. It's simply a byproduct of ANY war and ANY military weaponry support we may give. We sell/give weaponry and more to military of many countries, and to rebels and such. Generally in our best interest and the best interest of our allies, and sometimes the best interest of those seeking freedom and democracy. Anyone in the world would have to be extremely naive to think none of our intel or weaponry could be or was used in the past and had civilians killed. BUT, I still have my original stance, that the US is not actively targeting civilians and that we are not instructing/teaching and similar to others to do so. And we certainly are not sending our military and our massive weaponry to go after civilians, and it was that accusation that more or less got us here. I was pointing out copters and their ammo that is used by our military to stamp out terrorists. You made the leap from there to our military killing/targeting civilians. In fact, your initial comments towards civilians very much so was pointed not only at weaponry, but our military.

James .... Jim points out exactly why I took exception to your statement inferring that the American military intentionally targeted innocent civilians for slaughter. When you make a statement like that on this board, you are probably going to get a lot of intolerance directed at you .... however, it's that "free speech" thing .... you know, that special right that our military makes sure we all get to have.

You arrogantly came at me with Chomsky ideology thinking it would shut me up, probably not realizing that anyone quoting Chomsky as infallible is viewed as pretty much anti-American. So, think about it the next time you want to take a swipe at our military using Chomsky as your backup.

[NightTrain]

James .... Jim points out exactly why I took exception to your statement inferring that the American military intentionally targeted innocent civilians for slaughter. When you make a statement like that on this board, you are probably going to get a lot of intolerance directed at you .... however, it's that "free speech" thing .... you know, that special right that our military makes sure we all get to have.

You arrogantly came at me with Chomsky ideology thinking it would shut me up, probably not realizing that anyone quoting Chomsky as infallible is viewed as pretty much anti-American. So, think about it the next time you want to take a swipe at our military using Chomsky as your backup.


I had to laugh when he cited Chomsky and then Blum to back up his arguments.

Nice work, btw, Sassy.

[aboutime]

I had to laugh when he cited Chomsky and then Blum to back up his arguments.

Nice work, btw, Sassy.


NightTrain, and Sassylady. What posters like James, and jafar, and also gabby seem to believe is. They think all of us can't recognize using FREEDOM OF SPEECH and the 1st amendment as a FIREWALL they HIDE behind. Almost to the point of YELLING FIRE in a theater, but just at the edge of the envelope.
And when anyone dares to disagree with them, or presents alternative views. They scream abuse of their RIGHTS to speak.

This is the very same technique the enemies of the USA always use, trying to hide behind the U.S. Constitution, but in totally different ways in order for them to succeed in gaining power.

Most of us know. Whenever anyone attempts to site, or quote Chomsky. That is nothing but another shield, or firewall based on their own, twisted opinions based on hatred of almost everything American, and the very people who gave them that shield, with their lives, and without regret.
Jafar, and James are just two more of the Invisible Enemies who use the system, much like Obama is abusing the very system he was sworn to protect, and serve without reservation.
In other words. The ENEMY WITHIN...is represented by the warped minds of those who take joy in the Death of Americans, and seeing Capitalism die.

[James]

James, this from post #51, posted by NightTrain ...

I, too, would like to see you provide that list. It would help in showing us of your wish to be even-handed, free from focused bias.

I didn't think it would be that hard for you to understand, but let me make this clear.

Among all ideologies, there exist very fundamental disconnects. On this board, I'm an anarcho-communist and to compare AC to the statism of the soviets is, very simply, too inane for any meaningful discussion.

I've been accused of sympathizing with the soviets numerous times since joining, but every time is just another tally against reason.

[Gaffer]

I didn't think it would be that hard for you to understand, but let me make this clear.

Among all ideologies, there exist very fundamental disconnects. On this board, I'm an anarcho-communist and to compare AC to the statism of the soviets is, very simply, too inane for any meaningful discussion.

I've been accused of sympathizing with the soviets numerous times since joining, but every time is just another tally against reason.

That's just clear as mud. And you never answered any of my questions.

[NightTrain]

That's just clear as mud. And you never answered any of my questions.


I think that means he's some sort of Elite Commie and as such, only answers to Chomsky.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes, I do this this country's military has it's uses. I don't however, condone going to war using Winston Churchill's destructive ideas as justification, nor do I support killing civilians as a military tactic.

You attack Churchill you had better come up with something other than just your opinion on it!!
How about elaborating on those destructive ideas you claim the honorable Mr. Churchill had for starters and I'll correct the mistakes or assumptions that you will surely be making. Nobody gets by with attacking Churchill around me without my questioning their accusations!!
The truth will out Hoss if you dare to reply!!--Tyr

[James]

That's just clear as mud. And you never answered any of my questions.

Sure, I'll answer your question. No, I don't think it's fair that I should have to list the atrocities committed by a group I openly condemn.

[James]

I think that means he's some sort of Elite Commie and as such, only answers to Chomsky.

Empty rhetoric becomes you.

[NightTrain]

Empty rhetoric becomes you.

I enjoy chuckling and you make it easy.


Sue me.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You attack Churchill you had better come up with something other than just your opinion on it!!
How about elaborating on those destructive ideas you claim the honorable Mr. Churchill had for starters and I'll correct the mistakes or assumptions that you will surely be making. Nobody gets by with attacking Churchill around me without my questioning their accusations!!
The truth will out Hoss if you dare to reply!!--Tyr

^^^^^^^^^^^^^--Tyr

[SassyLady]

Sure, I'll answer your question. No, I don't think it's fair that I should have to list the atrocities committed by a group I openly condemn.

How did you come to the conclusion to condemn this group? Surely you either witnessed these atrocities or you read about them somewhere. We only ask that you provide the source from which you make your assertions.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[QUOTE=Tyr-Ziu Saxnot Just as I thought , you make false accusations that you either can not or will not back up. You remind me a lot of Gabby ! [/QUOTE]

Was a simple reply to my request about your comment on Churchill too hard a task for your brain? Surely you could easily present his negatives that you so boldly declared he was guilty of.. Or was it blather as now seems to be emerging as your true style of posting? -Tyr

[aboutime]

James seems to be convinced. HE IS CHOMSKY. Let's let him pretend as much as he likes.

I can come here to get laughs whenever I see James' name.

[Drummond]

Was a simple reply to my request about your comment on Churchill too hard a task for your brain? Surely you could easily present his negatives that you so boldly declared he was guilty of.. Or was it blather as now seems to be emerging as your true style of posting? -Tyr

:clap::clap::clap:

Quite !! James is not backing up his so-called 'views' .. one must assume, unless he proves otherwise, that he has no way of doing so. Which, where Churchill is concerned, can't possibly come as any surprise.

By the way, James, what happened to the comedy beard ????? I was enjoying that picture ! I'd begun speculating about what might be nesting in it !

[Drummond]

I didn't think it would be that hard for you to understand, but let me make this clear.

Among all ideologies, there exist very fundamental disconnects. On this board, I'm an anarcho-communist and to compare AC to the statism of the soviets is, very simply, too inane for any meaningful discussion.

I've been accused of sympathizing with the soviets numerous times since joining, but every time is just another tally against reason.

I believe I asked you for a list ? Where is it ?

Sorry to see that you ducked that challenge, James .. though it's no surprise. Your biases are evident. Hinting at disapproval isn't nearly the same as an outright attack. And I see your posting as broadly (and at times not so very broadly) anti-American and anti-Western.

I'd also like to know what, exactly, you have against Churchill. Details, please ! Or will you continue to duck that one, as well ?

... And as if all that isn't bad enough .... where's the comedy beard ???

[aboutime]

I believe I asked you for a list ? Where is it ?

Sorry to see that you ducked that challenge, James:laugh: .. though it's no surprise. Your biases are evident. Hinting at disapproval isn't nearly the same as an outright attack. And I see your posting as broadly (and at times not so very broadly) anti-American and anti-Western.

I'd also like to know what, exactly, you have against Churchill. Details, please ! Or will you continue to duck that one, as well ?

... And as if all that isn't bad enough .... where's the comedy beard ???


James:laugh: James:laugh: James:laugh: Thanks for the laughs.
Pretending to be Chomsky is an insult to Chomsky James:laugh:
Every time I see James':laugh: name. I get to laugh again.

[Drummond]

James:laugh: James:laugh: James:laugh: Thanks for the laughs.
Pretending to be Chomsky is an insult to Chomsky James:laugh:
Every time I see James':laugh: name. I get to laugh again.

I know exactly what you mean ... though I also think the beard helped, to be honest ....

Still, no matter, I'm sure James has some material lined up to make up for it ... :laugh::laugh:

[aboutime]

I know exactly what you mean ... though I also think the beard helped, to be honest ....

Still, no matter, I'm sure James has some material lined up to make up for it ... :laugh::laugh:


Yes. I must agree. A Beard does somehow manage to hide the TRUE smirk beneath it, where patronizing intentions lurk. Hey. That describes both James, and Chomski. Still proving. TWO WRONGS NEVER MAKE A RIGHT.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I know exactly what you mean ... though I also think the beard helped, to be honest ....

Still, no matter, I'm sure James has some material lined up to make up for it ... :laugh::laugh:

I think James thought dropping a name would somehow impress members here and he would get credit for the fame/intelligence of the owner of the name that he dropped. That method works quite well with lefties and liberals and other shallow buffoons but not with principled people that will question his point of view/comments regardless of the name dropped.-Tyr

[aboutime]

I think James thought dropping a name would somehow impress members here and he would get credit for the fame/intelligence of the owner of the name that he dropped. That method works quite well with lefties and liberals and other shallow buffoons but not with principled people that will question his point of view/comments regardless of the name dropped.-Tyr


Tyr. Has anyone noticed. Based on what you said about dropping names. How we rarely see any Liberal, Democrat, Progressive, Obama lover use his Image as their avatar?

They all want us to believe they love, and admire him so much. Yet they rarely DARE to use his name. Fearing any reference to him at all would earn them the Hallowed Liberal, Honorable Identity as Racists.

What other reason could there be? Just like James using known Socialist, Communist supporting...thankfully stupid people. And pretending to be those people???

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr. Has anyone noticed. Based on what you said about dropping names. How we rarely see any Liberal, Democrat, Progressive, Obama lover use his Image as their avatar?

They all want us to believe they love, and admire him so much. Yet they rarely DARE to use his name. Fearing any reference to him at all would earn them the Hallowed Liberal, Honorable Identity as Racists.

What other reason could there be? Just like James using known Socialist, Communist supporting...thankfully stupid people. And pretending to be those people???

They worship the bastard like he is another Mohammad . Maybe they fear to use the messiah's holy image.
Getting a head start on recognizing his coming Godhood! --Tyr

[aboutime]

They worship the bastard like he is another Mohammad . Maybe they fear to use the messiah's holy image.
Getting a head start on recognizing his coming Godhood! --Tyr

I know. Makes me really feel depressed to know. So many millions of Americans are so terribly...downright dumb, and easily led. But. Soon enough. They'll all learn what they have been in Denial about since 2008. But then. Stupid is, still As Stupid Does....

4239 4240 4241