Fighting for MY Freedoms?

[sambino510]

[

You're right, I'm not cut out for the military. It's just not out of fear. .

From what you've demonstrated here, it would seem to be out of a lack of character and intelligence.

And extreme naivety.

What am I naive about? Specifically?

 

[sambino510]

'

And an inability to understand that his interlocutors are unprincipled sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome.

.

I have absolutely no idea what about me just screams Tourette's, but sure, if you say so.

 

[Survivalist]

I'm too impatient to mulitquote everything, but I'll try to hit on some of your concerns and biases.

As for Miranda---it isn't needed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just another dodge for criminals to escape justice.

It may not be needed by you, but it is needed by that dumb schmuck who falls afoul of sloppy or biased police work, and doesn't understand that he has rights, and doesn't have to cede them to anyone wearing a uniform. This is an important aspect of universal freedom and democracy, concepts you claim (correct me if I am wrong) to support.

[
As for higher Black violence, that's just the way it is. Humans fall under the same laws of nature that all animals do. Besides the obivous physical differences, intelligence and behavior can be inherited traits that follow ethnic groups.

Intelligence is not a trait that follows ethnic groups. You've been watching Fox News again, haven't you? Some dysfunctional traits can be inherited, but not across the board of a racial group.




To begin with, black people are not snakes, although you may think so. There are multiple and complex reasons why people or social groups act violently. Blacks in the US have a history of slavery, lynchings, and discrimination, which no doubt goes into the mix. But these are social, psychological, and economic problems, not ones of race. Your own president is black. He is also a professor of law, and an articulate speaker. Are you going to tell us the white DNA in his system overcame the inferior black DNA?

Up until the '60s, in the US south "white" violence was over the top, with blacks being lynched just for fun, and on some occasions white activists were killed too, for having the nerve to suggest human rights had a place here. Are you going to tell us this was just traits within the white southerners DNA, or, where the reasons here more complex?

As for Africa- you're right. It is a mess. And so is Central America, Russia, Brazil, and a number of other places. The reasons for this could fill a book. The simplistic answer is to guess that if these folks look different, then they are different. Doing some background reading will disabuse you of this idea.



Implicit in your statement is the idea that if someone kills themselves, then it is of no account- write them off. A death is a death, and if it can be prevented, that's generally good. This is the point. Are you aware, by the way, that a great many US military vets have killed themselves? Do you figure they count, or not?



Nearly one percent of the US population is incarcerated. That's massively higher than any comparible country.




You have made the classic error in interpreting statistics. Because two events are correlated, it does not necessarily imply cause. I get up and shave every morning, and every morning the sun comes up. Using your logic, I could say my shaving causes the sun to come up. Get the picture?

As for violent crime, not "gun deaths" the Swiss are always far below the UK.

Yep. But gun deaths per captia are far higher in Switzerland. We can guess the reason.

[
One last thing to chew on. Would you feel more threatened in a gun collector's house with a hundred guns well supervised, or in a crack house with ten crackheads and just one stolen handgun?

I feel much more secure where I am, in a country where violence is downplayed, and gun ownership severly restricted.

From what I can figure out, you are from a Commonwealth country---likely the UK. The most rabid anti-gunners in the political forums seem to come from there. I don't see anyone defending your feelings that there are no bad people, only bad guns.

Once again, you are forced to mix in "gun deaths" like with suicides to validate your views on public safety. If I was as concered about other people killing themselves as you, I wouldn't ever visit Japan, which has almost no privately owned guns, and vastly more suicides than anywhere else. Since so many people kill themselves by falling off buildings, I would not want to take the chance of walking down the street in Tokoyo and having a suicidal person land on me. The risk of that happening would be far greater than for me getting shot by a stray bullet from a suicide attempt down the street in the US.

Here is the latest comprehensive look at worldwide crime ( I know you won't look at it, but here it is anyway):

http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobt...tion&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

Look at Figure 1 page 10. As you see all the Black African regions are at the top of world homocide rates.

Figure 2 shows how so much of Africa is so jacked-up that there are no police or government agencies to record any of the killings in most of them.

Figure 3 shows that all but the northern Arab areas of the Africa have so many murders compared to Figure 4 in Western Europe, that they make the murders in W. Europe seem insignificant. Somalia is considered the most dangerous country on earth and any outsider going there is often kidnapped or killed. Most of Africa has no 911 emergency service or police force around.

Figure 5 pg 15 show what I already told you that there are about twice as many homocides per person in the UK as there is in Switzerland.

Now if what you are saying is true that people or ethnic groups CAN'T inherit violent tendancies, personalities or intelligence, then the brain would have to work by magical powers outside of how the rest of the body does.

The human brain would always be born as a blank slate, only, and only the enviornment can have an influence on a person then. Geniuses could only be nurtured, not born if what you say is true.

To prove your point, right after birth, a baby of the Aboriginals (with about the lowest IQ's of any group) could be adopted and raised by the best and brightest and could be trained to be anything they deisred.

You see, any baby can be a genius like Mozart and compose music by age 5 with the right teachers and parents. Any baby of any race could also be an Iassic Newton, Thomas Edison or Steve Jobs.

Oh, and BTW Barak is only half Black---try another example please.

 

[numan]

And an inability to understand that his interlocutors are unprincipled sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome.

I have absolutely no idea what about me just screams Tourette's, but sure, if you say so.

No, no, you nitwit, it is the guys who are badgering you who are the verbal diarrhoea Tourette's victims!!

You are either very modest, or are having trouble with your reading comprehension!!!

.

 

[sambino510]

And an inability to understand that his interlocutors are unprincipled sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome.

I have absolutely no idea what about me just screams Tourette's, but sure, if you say so.

No, no, you nitwit, it is the guys who are badgering you who are the verbal diarrhoea Tourette's victims!!

You are either very modest, or are having trouble with your reading comprehension!!!

.

Ah, my apologies, obviously completely misunderstood that.

 

[sambino510]

I'm too impatient to mulitquote everything, but I'll try to hit on some of your concerns and biases.

As for Miranda---it isn't needed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just another dodge for criminals to escape justice.

It may not be needed by you, but it is needed by that dumb schmuck who falls afoul of sloppy or biased police work, and doesn't understand that he has rights, and doesn't have to cede them to anyone wearing a uniform. This is an important aspect of universal freedom and democracy, concepts you claim (correct me if I am wrong) to support.



Intelligence is not a trait that follows ethnic groups. You've been watching Fox News again, haven't you? Some dysfunctional traits can be inherited, but not across the board of a racial group.




To begin with, black people are not snakes, although you may think so. There are multiple and complex reasons why people or social groups act violently. Blacks in the US have a history of slavery, lynchings, and discrimination, which no doubt goes into the mix. But these are social, psychological, and economic problems, not ones of race. Your own president is black. He is also a professor of law, and an articulate speaker. Are you going to tell us the white DNA in his system overcame the inferior black DNA?

Up until the '60s, in the US south "white" violence was over the top, with blacks being lynched just for fun, and on some occasions white activists were killed too, for having the nerve to suggest human rights had a place here. Are you going to tell us this was just traits within the white southerners DNA, or, where the reasons here more complex?

As for Africa- you're right. It is a mess. And so is Central America, Russia, Brazil, and a number of other places. The reasons for this could fill a book. The simplistic answer is to guess that if these folks look different, then they are different. Doing some background reading will disabuse you of this idea.



Implicit in your statement is the idea that if someone kills themselves, then it is of no account- write them off. A death is a death, and if it can be prevented, that's generally good. This is the point. Are you aware, by the way, that a great many US military vets have killed themselves? Do you figure they count, or not?



Nearly one percent of the US population is incarcerated. That's massively higher than any comparible country.




You have made the classic error in interpreting statistics. Because two events are correlated, it does not necessarily imply cause. I get up and shave every morning, and every morning the sun comes up. Using your logic, I could say my shaving causes the sun to come up. Get the picture?



Yep. But gun deaths per captia are far higher in Switzerland. We can guess the reason.

[
One last thing to chew on. Would you feel more threatened in a gun collector's house with a hundred guns well supervised, or in a crack house with ten crackheads and just one stolen handgun?

I feel much more secure where I am, in a country where violence is downplayed, and gun ownership severly restricted.

From what I can figure out, you are from a Commonwealth country---likely the UK. The most rabid anti-gunners in the political forums seem to come from there. I don't see anyone defending your feelings that there are no bad people, only bad guns.

Once again, you are forced to mix in "gun deaths" like with suicides to validate your views on public safety. If I was as concered about other people killing themselves as you, I wouldn't ever visit Japan, which has almost no privately owned guns, and vastly more suicides than anywhere else. Since so many people kill themselves by falling off buildings, I would not want to take the chance of walking down the street in Tokoyo and having a suicidal person land on me. The risk of that happening would be far greater than for me getting shot by a stray bullet from a suicide attempt down the street in the US.

Here is the latest comprehensive look at worldwide crime ( I know you won't look at it, but here it is anyway):

http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobt...tion&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

Look at Figure 1 page 10. As you see all the Black African regions are at the top of world homocide rates.

Figure 2 shows how so much of Africa is so jacked-up that there are no police or government agencies to record any of the killings in most of them.

Figure 3 shows that all but the northern Arab areas of the Africa have so many murders compared to Figure 4 in Western Europe, that they make the murders in W. Europe seem insignificant. Somalia is considered the most dangerous country on earth and any outsider going there is often kidnapped or killed. Most of Africa has no 911 emergency service or police force around.

Figure 5 pg 15 show what I already told you that there are about twice as many homocides per person in the UK as there is in Switzerland.

Now if what you are saying is true that people or ethnic groups CAN'T inherit violent tendancies, personalities or intelligence, then the brain would have to work by magical powers outside of how the rest of the body does.

The human brain would always be born as a blank slate, only, and only the enviornment can have an influence on a person then. Geniuses could only be nurtured, not born if what you say is true.

To prove your point, right after birth, a baby of the Aboriginals (with about the lowest IQ's of any group) could be adopted and raised by the best and brightest and could be trained to be anything they deisred.

You see, any baby can be a genius like Mozart and compose music by age 5 with the right teachers and parents. Any baby of any race could also be an Iassic Newton, Thomas Edison or Steve Jobs.

Oh, and BTW Barak is only half Black---try another example please.

I doubt peoples' concern about people committing suicide has to do with the fact that they're worried about them falling on them. Maybe a bit of sarcasm in your statement, I'm not sure. Forgive me if I've missed the point.

I'd be curious to see scientific, biological differences between Black, White, Asian, and other races that could support your findings. The statistics you list,accurate or inaccurate I do not know, have all sorts of influences, none of them necessarily reflecting a natural inclination for African people to live more violent lives. They have an infinite number of influences; upbringing, culture, and yes environment come to mind.

If we are to look at the world from your statistics' perspective, where white, Western countries have less killings, then I don't see how that explains the white barbarians from hundreds of years ago. Wouldn't they naturally exhibit less of a tendency towards violent behavior than their black counterparts? Maybe I'm going to deep with this, but there's all sorts of examples of white people committing violent acts, from the British empire and Spanish Armada to the Napoleonic Wars, NONE of them necessarily biological.

I believe it's true that, on average, most brains are indeed some sort of blank slate to a degree. Then a family's upbringing, or lack there of, as well as culture trains them in various ways and teaches them different behaviors. I have no degree in science, but this seems rather logical. The method of measuring skulls for brain capacity and all that nonsense is, I hope, a thing of the past. Any person of any race is capable of any thing with the right environment and lifestyle.

 

[Auteur]

Look, you are getting your information from old western movies. Those with truely bad intent are not going to challenge potential victims to a fair fight on Main Street, giving the opponent a chance to draw first. They are going to kill them, or otherwise do serious damage to get what they want, and choose a time when their victim is not looking, has their back turned, is distracted, is unaware in some critical way.

And furthermore, if all in society become armed, as you seem to advocate, then you can be sure that any potential assailant is also going to be armed, and will have the choice of shooting first. Arming everyone simply ups the anti by providing everyone with lethal force

None of this disproves anything I have said nor does it change the fact that many people who otherwise would have had no or poor chance successfully defend themselves with weapons every day . I am just unable to believe that anyone who has been in the military would not prefer to prefer to be armed than unarmed if involved in combat. Silly idea.

And, once again, no honest person uses the meaningless term "gun deaths".

Look, you were in the infantry, if we can go by your avatar, yes? When you went out in the field, did you study intelligence first? Check your maps? Test fire weapons? Put on helmets and flack vests? Assign arcs of responsibility? Pre-plan movements through suspect areas? Keep in radio contact? Use techniques like fire and movement? And if you did all these,did you then think you had a guarantee of not getting shot? Of course not.

Fast forward to today, and your little old lady with the handgun in her purse. How many of these precautions do you think she will be taking on her trip to the mall? When an event is very rare, we tend to not be ready for it when it comes. That thug that comes up beside your example will probably be unseen, and not only rob her, but also take her gun, to be used in further crimes.

So...because the hypothetical little old lady might not be prepared you would deny her any possibility of being prepared? Were you in military intelligence?
You might note that things don't always go down the way the scumbag (who may well be drunk, stoned, clumsy, and/or stupid) intends. Not all criminals are masterminds.

Absolutely, they are not. And that is the point. If criminals wisely considered their plans, they would not commit crimes. But they do. Deterrence does not work, for the most part, because so many crimes are impulsive, ill thought out, urged on in a drug haze, the effect of mental illness, or extreme emotional distress, or simply a low IQ.

Consider this: the US has some of the most draconian laws in the western world. A murderer can receive the death penalty, or spend his/her entire life in prison. In Canada, short of extreme circumstances, the most a murderer is likely to spend behind bars is 22 years. And in many cases, it is much less than this. So one would expect that the murder rate in Canada would be higher, as there is less deterrance. But this is not the case, the rate in Canada is much lower.

What does this tell us? Threats do not work. The prospect of a gun in a handbag, or car glover compartment, is not actually a deterrant, going by the statistics. All it does is ratchet up the level of violence and death in a society. It pushes our communities to resemble a infantry outpost, rather than a rational place for human beings. You we in the military. Is this what you want for you society? Your kids?

 

[Unkotare]

'

And an inability to understand that his interlocutors are unprincipled sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome.

.

Did you ever wrap up your thread on how you disdain all human beings, champ?

 

[Auteur]

[

You're right, I'm not cut out for the military. It's just not out of fear. .

From what you've demonstrated here, it would seem to be out of a lack of character and intelligence.

Well, lets review the posts on this thread. Sambino had been able to assemble some reasoned arguements, and furthermore do it without insult to anyone.

Others here have contributed nothing, but a few testosterone soaked pledges to the flag, adolescent one liners, or hillbilly style versions of history.

Do you have anything to add, besides a few indolent pecks on your cell phone?

 

[Unkotare]

[

You're right, I'm not cut out for the military. It's just not out of fear. .

From what you've demonstrated here, it would seem to be out of a lack of character and intelligence.

Well, lets review the posts on this thread. Sambino had been able to assemble some reasoned arguements, and furthermore do it without insult to anyone.

Others here have contributed nothing, but a few testosterone soaked pledges to the flag, adolescent one liners, or hillbilly style versions of history.

Do you have anything to add, besides a few indolent pecks on your cell phone?

If your tender sensibilities aren't up to it, you can go read another thread, princess.

 

[Auteur]

From what I can figure out, you are from a Commonwealth country---likely the UK. The most rabid anti-gunners in the political forums seem to come from there. I don't see anyone defending your feelings that there are no bad people, only bad guns.

Close, but no cigar. Actually I'm from an even more rabid den of Liberal/Commie/faggot extremists, but one you probably have not heard of.

By the way, if you had read the last few posts, you would have my views on "bad people".

Once again, you are forced to mix in "gun deaths" like with suicides to validate your views on public safety. If I was as concered about other people killing themselves as you, I wouldn't ever visit Japan, which has almost no privately owned guns, and vastly more suicides than anywhere else. Since so many people kill themselves by falling off buildings, I would not want to take the chance of walking down the street in Tokoyo and having a suicidal person land on me. The risk of that happening would be far greater than for me getting shot by a stray bullet from a suicide attempt down the street in the US.

When I talk about gun deaths, I'm talking about the responsibility of a community in deciding what is best- and what is safe- for its members. If people are killing each other, then it is an issue, and one that should be explored. If people are killing themselves, then that is also an issue that should be explored. For the vast majority of those that do so, do it for dysfunctional (and fixable) reasons. I also note that as a "vet" you have discounted your fellows that have been so troubled as to put a gun to their head.

Here is the latest comprehensive look at worldwide crime ( I know you won't look at it, but here it is anyway):

http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobt...tion&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

Look at Figure 1 page 10. As you see all the Black African regions are at the top of world homocide rates.

Figure 2 shows how so much of Africa is so jacked-up that there are no police or government agencies to record any of the killings in most of them.

Figure 3 shows that all but the northern Arab areas of the Africa have so many murders compared to Figure 4 in Western Europe, that they make the murders in W. Europe seem insignificant. Somalia is considered the most dangerous country on earth and any outsider going there is often kidnapped or killed. Most of Africa has no 911 emergency service or police force around.

Mr S- this is getting tiresome. You present charts but do not understand the interpretation of them. For an example, the stats on Africa present a mixed view. The worst crime is in the southern portion. Are we surprised? South Africa, the inheritor of apartheid and racism, is in a rather bad state, as any that was set up along fascist lines would be, even some years down the road.

Actually some of the most disturbing stats come from Latin America. Remember the Munroe Doctrine? It said: this land is my land, and don't f--- with white people. This sentiment has carried on until very recent times, producing all manner of mayhem in such said area. You perhaps don't remember marines wading ashore in the Dominican Republic, or Grenada, or many before, in order to make the region safe for US interests. Such turmoil takes a while to wind down. Even the "white" folks in Europe took a while to settle down. The Treaty of Versailles generated all sorts of angst, and also the biggest blood lettting in modern times. Just their DNA? Don't think so Mr S.

If you want to compare a territory that is in rough and preliminary stages of its infancy, why don't we have a look at the "white" folks in the US, in the 1770's and 1780's. The united empire loyalists (perhaps a third or more of the population), where beaten, robbed, killed, raped, and expelled. Why? They were perceived, at the time, to belong to another tribe, with different loyalties. Sounds almost like Africa, doesn't it? Of course, these are things you will not find in an American text.

Don't want to talk about Africa? Then how about N Ireland, where a vicious civil war raged for decades, tribe against tribe? Or the Red Brigades? Or the Yugoslav ethnic cleansing? Or for that matter the white Israeli ethnic cleansing?

When a region is locked into a cycle of violence, and atrocities occur, it tends to ratchet ever upwards, until armageddon is reached (1945 for example) or someone intervenes (Yugoslavia 1990s for example). Your own country has gone through such spasms.

Figure 5 pg 15 show what I already told you that there are about twice as many homocides per person in the UK as there is in Switzerland.

We have already dealt with this. There are more homicides per capita in the UK, but of the homicides in Switzerland, an overwhelming number are due to guns. Just think if they didn't have all those guns in houses in Switzerland- what a record they would have!

Now if what you are saying is true that people or ethnic groups CAN'T inherit violent tendancies, personalities or intelligence, then the brain would have to work by magical powers outside of how the rest of the body does.

The human brain would always be born as a blank slate, only, and only the enviornment can have an influence on a person then. Geniuses could only be nurtured, not born if what you say is true.

To prove your point, right after birth, a baby of the Aboriginals (with about the lowest IQ's of any group) could be adopted and raised by the best and brightest and could be trained to be anything they deisred.

You see, any baby can be a genius like Mozart and compose music by age 5 with the right teachers and parents. Any baby of any race could also be an Iassic Newton, Thomas Edison or Steve Jobs.

Oh, and BTW Barak is only half Black---try another example please.

It's not magic Mr S- it's called psychology and physiology, two subjects you might find interesting if you were to consult you local librarian on them (i'd recomment you do). Your own previous secretary of defense, Colin Powell, rose above meager beginings to become a top advisor in government, and one that (as it turns out) was much brighter and ethical than his fellows in government at the time. Many top scientists and researchers today come from races other than white.

Yes, some things are inherited, but intelligence is an extremely complex subject, and one that cannot be attributed to race, or to inheritance.

And as for Obama, yes he is half white, half black. In your books that should be a handicap, yes? Yet he has a Phd. Do you? He taught law at a university. Have you? He can speak for hours in an articulate manner. You're struggling on these minimal pages. What's the story? Are you letting down your race?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Look, you were in the infantry, if we can go by your avatar, yes? When you went out in the field, did you study intelligence first? Check your maps? Test fire weapons? Put on helmets and flack vests? Assign arcs of responsibility? Pre-plan movements through suspect areas? Keep in radio contact? Use techniques like fire and movement? And if you did all these,did you then think you had a guarantee of not getting shot? Of course not.

Fast forward to today, and your little old lady with the handgun in her purse. How many of these precautions do you think she will be taking on her trip to the mall? When an event is very rare, we tend to not be ready for it when it comes. That thug that comes up beside your example will probably be unseen, and not only rob her, but also take her gun, to be used in further crimes.

So...because the hypothetical little old lady might not be prepared you would deny her any possibility of being prepared? Were you in military intelligence?
You might note that things don't always go down the way the scumbag (who may well be drunk, stoned, clumsy, and/or stupid) intends. Not all criminals are masterminds.

Absolutely, they are not. And that is the point. If criminals wisely considered their plans, they would not commit crimes. But they do. Deterrence does not work, for the most part, because so many crimes are impulsive, ill thought out, urged on in a drug haze, the effect of mental illness, or extreme emotional distress, or simply a low IQ.

Consider this: the US has some of the most draconian laws in the western world. A murderer can receive the death penalty, or spend his/her entire life in prison. In Canada, short of extreme circumstances, the most a murderer is likely to spend behind bars is 22 years. And in many cases, it is much less than this. So one would expect that the murder rate in Canada would be higher, as there is less deterrance. But this is not the case, the rate in Canada is much lower.

What does this tell us? Threats do not work. The prospect of a gun in a handbag, or car glover compartment, is not actually a deterrant, going by the statistics. All it does is ratchet up the level of violence and death in a society. It pushes our communities to resemble a infantry outpost, rather than a rational place for human beings. You we in the military. Is this what you want for you society? Your kids?

Absolutely, they are not. And that is the point.

True. MY point. You have simply reworded my response to your assertion that criminals are just too fiendishly cunning to allow people a chance of defending themselves. Try to decide which side of the issue you want to argue.

Deterrence does not work,..

Of course it does. Shooting is an excellent deterrent. Shoot a criminal dead and he will never commit another crime. 100% guaranteed. In fact I've found that just the sight of a firearm often convinces people that a change of plans is in order.


It pushes our communities to resemble a infantry outpost, rather than a rational place for human beings. You we in the military. Is this what you want for you society? Your kids?

Absolutely if that is what is required. I believe people have a moral responsibility to protect their family and themselves from all threats and that a person who is not reasonably prepared to do so is essentially worthless and should not be allowed to marry or have children. I do NOT wish to be part of a culture of sheep just waiting to be the victim of any wolf that wonders by. And I will not be.
My children received weapons training almost from birth. Now both my Son and my Grandson have brought home much venison and other wild game for the table. My Son normally carries a .45 as do I.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Sambino, there are evil people in this world who really do want to harm us.[...]

Why?

According to Osama bin Laden, the reasons for the 9/11 attack were (1) our support of Israel, and (2) the presence of an American military base smack in the middle of Mecca.

And do you think our devastation of the sovereign nation of Iraq, concluding with an unlawful invasion and occupation, is the way to make friends of and influence Islamic people? Remember, Iraq represented no threat to us. The Iraqi people did nothing to us. And the bombing of Baghdad was not a celebratory fireworks display. A lot of little children were killed in their cribs when the Bush dynasty engineered that crime -- and it was done in our names. Yours and mine.

So to the Iraqi people, and to an increasing number of Islamics who empathize with them, we are evil. The Great Satan they call us. And can you blame them for wanting to harm us?

We made a lot of friends in Vietnam, too.

We can't all sit around, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. The issue with Afghanistan is that that the people there do not consider themselves to be from Afghanistan. They consider them part of the local tribes. This kind of thinking has allowed groups like Al Qaeda to set up camps easily to train people in order to attack us and our allies.

I wonder why.

I do not think nation building works but the only alternative is to go in and destroy the country every few years and that does not seem feasible economically or ethically.

"Nation-building" is a euphemism for facilitating the interests of the oil industry.

So yes, we fight for your personally and for all Americans. You're welcome.

The last time any member of the U.S. Armed Forces fired a shot or shed blood in defense of the American Nation and its people was in 1945.

Semper Fi.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The last time any member of the U.S. Armed Forces fired a shot or shed blood in defense of the American Nation and its people was in 1945.

Untrue.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

t's not magic Mr S- it's called psychology and physiology, two subjects you might find interesting if you were to consult you local librarian on them (i'd recomment you do). Your own previous secretary of defense, Colin Powell, rose above meager beginings to become a top advisor in government, and one that (as it turns out) was much brighter and ethical than his fellows in government at the time. Many top scientists and researchers today come from races other than white.

[...]

Colin Powell, you say. Quite a choice as a model of ethics. Colin Powell is best described as George W. Bush's house ******!

Colin Powell richly deserves to be tried and ceremoniously hanged alongside the master who coaxed and induced him to betray not only his Nation but the soldiers who trusted him and whom he deliberately and knowingly sent to be killed or maimed in Iraq.

Colin Powell was not a PFC clerk at some supply depot. He was the Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff who directed Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm and presided over destruction of the Iraqi army. No one was in a better position than he to know exactly what kind of weapons Saddam Hussein had and did not have access to. Not even that greasy bastard, Tenet. Colin Powell methodically and cynically lied to the UN and to the world. He did it because master Bush had made him Secretary of State. And no one is more responsible for what happened as the result of his artful lying, because no one else would have been believed or so fatefully trusted.

You clearly are an intelligent person. Are you so preoccupied with racial considerations you are willing to casually overlook this man's disgraceful treachery?

 

[sambino510]

[...]

t's not magic Mr S- it's called psychology and physiology, two subjects you might find interesting if you were to consult you local librarian on them (i'd recomment you do). Your own previous secretary of defense, Colin Powell, rose above meager beginings to become a top advisor in government, and one that (as it turns out) was much brighter and ethical than his fellows in government at the time. Many top scientists and researchers today come from races other than white.

[...]

Colin Powell, you say. Quite a choice as a model of ethics. Colin Powell is best described as George W. Bush's house ******!

Colin Powell richly deserves to be tried and ceremoniously hanged alongside the master who coaxed and induced him to betray not only his Nation but the soldiers who trusted him and whom he deliberately and knowingly sent to be killed or maimed in Iraq.

Colin Powell was not a PFC clerk at some supply depot. He was the Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff who directed Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm and presided over destruction of the Iraqi army. No one was in a better position than he to know exactly what kind of weapons Saddam Hussein had and did not have access to. Not even that greasy bastard, Tenet. Colin Powell methodically and cynically lied to the UN and to the world. He did it because master Bush had made him Secretary of State. And no one is more responsible for what happened as the result of his artful lying, because no one else would have been believed or so fatefully trusted.

You clearly are an intelligent person. Are you so preoccupied with racial considerations you are willing to casually overlook this man's disgraceful treachery?

Though I agree with much of what you said, I would have to say that Colin Powell remains one of the more intelligent members of that administration. He eventually came out and admitted that he was mis-led by intelligence services and apologized for his role in what went on back then. This could just be an attempt to save face, but I can appreciate a man who knows how to apologize nonetheless. Now, he seems very realistic about some of the impossibilities of the two wars, and it's hard to believe that was him a decade ago. That being said, I still do not think Colin Powell is some shining example to the black race. I think the person who brought his name up simply wanted to demonstrate his success in life in order to prove the point that not all black people are naturally unsuccessful.

 

[sambino510]

The last time any member of the U.S. Armed Forces fired a shot or shed blood in defense of the American Nation and its people was in 1945.

Untrue.

Why do you think it's untrue? I would agree that it's untrue only because many soldiers would "say" they're fighting in defense of our nation. Their own personal motivation and feelings about their mission is their own business. However, whether they're really fighting in defense of the average citizen's freedom is debatable, as stated in my original post. I think it's pretty fair to say that Japan and Germany had a much more real threat to America and the rest of the world than Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, Iraq, or Afghanistan, thus WWII carries a bit more weight than the other, smaller conflicts.

A Taliban soldier killed by an Apache gunship holds no bearing on my personal life as far as I'm concerned. I think even our government officials would say that the mission there is not for the average American citizen, but if anything is to improve the life of the Afghan people. So if anything, I say we should change the motto to "defending the freedom of people abroad", not "defending the freedom of Americans".

 

[Survivalist]

From what I can figure out, you are from a Commonwealth country---likely the UK. The most rabid anti-gunners in the political forums seem to come from there. I don't see anyone defending your feelings that there are no bad people, only bad guns.

Once again, you are forced to mix in "gun deaths" like with suicides to validate your views on public safety. If I was as concered about other people killing themselves as you, I wouldn't ever visit Japan, which has almost no privately owned guns, and vastly more suicides than anywhere else. Since so many people kill themselves by falling off buildings, I would not want to take the chance of walking down the street in Tokoyo and having a suicidal person land on me. The risk of that happening would be far greater than for me getting shot by a stray bullet from a suicide attempt down the street in the US.

Here is the latest comprehensive look at worldwide crime ( I know you won't look at it, but here it is anyway):

http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobt...tion&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

Look at Figure 1 page 10. As you see all the Black African regions are at the top of world homocide rates.

Figure 2 shows how so much of Africa is so jacked-up that there are no police or government agencies to record any of the killings in most of them.

Figure 3 shows that all but the northern Arab areas of the Africa have so many murders compared to Figure 4 in Western Europe, that they make the murders in W. Europe seem insignificant. Somalia is considered the most dangerous country on earth and any outsider going there is often kidnapped or killed. Most of Africa has no 911 emergency service or police force around.

Figure 5 pg 15 show what I already told you that there are about twice as many homocides per person in the UK as there is in Switzerland.

Now if what you are saying is true that people or ethnic groups CAN'T inherit violent tendancies, personalities or intelligence, then the brain would have to work by magical powers outside of how the rest of the body does.

The human brain would always be born as a blank slate, only, and only the enviornment can have an influence on a person then. Geniuses could only be nurtured, not born if what you say is true.

To prove your point, right after birth, a baby of the Aboriginals (with about the lowest IQ's of any group) could be adopted and raised by the best and brightest and could be trained to be anything they deisred.

You see, any baby can be a genius like Mozart and compose music by age 5 with the right teachers and parents. Any baby of any race could also be an Iassic Newton, Thomas Edison or Steve Jobs.

Oh, and BTW Barak is only half Black---try another example please.

I doubt peoples' concern about people committing suicide has to do with the fact that they're worried about them falling on them. Maybe a bit of sarcasm in your statement, I'm not sure. Forgive me if I've missed the point.

I'd be curious to see scientific, biological differences between Black, White, Asian, and other races that could support your findings. The statistics you list,accurate or inaccurate I do not know, have all sorts of influences, none of them necessarily reflecting a natural inclination for African people to live more violent lives. They have an infinite number of influences; upbringing, culture, and yes environment come to mind.

If we are to look at the world from your statistics' perspective, where white, Western countries have less killings, then I don't see how that explains the white barbarians from hundreds of years ago. Wouldn't they naturally exhibit less of a tendency towards violent behavior than their black counterparts? Maybe I'm going to deep with this, but there's all sorts of examples of white people committing violent acts, from the British empire and Spanish Armada to the Napoleonic Wars, NONE of them necessarily biological.

I believe it's true that, on average, most brains are indeed some sort of blank slate to a degree. Then a family's upbringing, or lack there of, as well as culture trains them in various ways and teaches them different behaviors. I have no degree in science, but this seems rather logical. The method of measuring skulls for brain capacity and all that nonsense is, I hope, a thing of the past. Any person of any race is capable of any thing with the right environment and lifestyle.

Yes, I like satire. Western Whites developed virtually all modern weapons. The simple gun made all other swords, clubs, and other edged weapons obsolete. Guns are a kinder, gentler weapon than using ancient weapons to bash-in or split open enemies. Western colonialists were able to basically walk over Stone Age cultures all over the planet. Just because it wasn't a fair fight does not let the Sone Age peoples off the hook. They were doing the same thing to each other, holding and gaining territory through warfare long before the Whites came along. Given the "savage" behavior of Zulus, Aztecs, Yaquies, Arabs, Mongols, etc., etc....Ancient Europeans like the Vikings were far less brutal in most cases. The Western code of Honor was the basis of the Geneva Convention.

Now if you go to college at some intolerant, liberal instiution like UC Berkeley, DON'T bring any of the following up in any class or face crucifiction and bad grades. It is taboo in such liberal cultures:

From the best data available, an objective person knows that hereditiy is the main influence on what a person's IQ, personality and behavior will develop into. I'd say heredity is at least 80% of it. There are no "Tarzan Studies" with Whites being raised by anything but some Native Americans as small children, but there are others:

Minnesota Twin Family Study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Twins reared apart:

In 1979, Thomas Bouchard began to study twins who were separated at birth and reared in different families. He found that an identical twin reared away from his or her co-twin seems to have about an equal chance of being similar to the co-twin in terms of personality, interests, and attitudes as one who has been reared with his or her co-twin. This leads to the conclusion that the similarities between twins are due to genes, not environment, since the differences between twins reared apart must be due totally to the environment

Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both Levin (1994) and Lynn (1994) argued that the data clearly support a hereditarian alternative: that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees

The meat of the last study showed that Black children adopted by two very intelligent White parents only moved their average IQ's of 85 to about 91. Whites avg 100.

If intelligence is inherited, so it personality and tendancies toward violent behavior. Yes Whites like all other peoples have been brutal in wars over the years, but how violent have they been to each other Lately? Is the IRA fighting in Northern Ireland the best anyone can come up with in the last 60 years?

Keep in mind that Ecomonics, Sociology and Psycology are not pure sciences. Not like Mathmatics where 1+1 always equals 2, they are very, very subjective and politically influenced.

 

[Auteur]

[...]

t's not magic Mr S- it's called psychology and physiology, two subjects you might find interesting if you were to consult you local librarian on them (i'd recomment you do). Your own previous secretary of defense, Colin Powell, rose above meager beginings to become a top advisor in government, and one that (as it turns out) was much brighter and ethical than his fellows in government at the time. Many top scientists and researchers today come from races other than white.

[...]

Colin Powell, you say. Quite a choice as a model of ethics. Colin Powell is best described as George W. Bush's house ******!

Colin Powell richly deserves to be tried and ceremoniously hanged alongside the master who coaxed and induced him to betray not only his Nation but the soldiers who trusted him and whom he deliberately and knowingly sent to be killed or maimed in Iraq.

Colin Powell was not a PFC clerk at some supply depot. He was the Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff who directed Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm and presided over destruction of the Iraqi army. No one was in a better position than he to know exactly what kind of weapons Saddam Hussein had and did not have access to. Not even that greasy bastard, Tenet. Colin Powell methodically and cynically lied to the UN and to the world. He did it because master Bush had made him Secretary of State. And no one is more responsible for what happened as the result of his artful lying, because no one else would have been believed or so fatefully trusted.

You clearly are an intelligent person. Are you so preoccupied with racial considerations you are willing to casually overlook this man's disgraceful treachery?

My point was not to defend Powell's role in the Bush administration, but to point out that race is not a decider of intelligence or ability. I thought our right-wing fellow poster might more easily relate to an example a little closer to his heart than more liberal examples. To Powell's credit though, I think he did have second thoughts after the facts. Better late than never.

 

[Unkotare]

A Taliban soldier killed by an Apache gunship holds no bearing on my personal life as far as I'm concerned.

That's because your mental and moral limitations are quite severe.