Fighting for MY Freedoms?

[Mushroom]

And................now the thread belongs in the Conspiracy Forum.

Well if you want to get really specific about it this thread could belong in any number of forums, including racial issues, gun control, conspiracy, politics, whatever. There's no reason we can't have broad discussions in a military forum, as politics and conspiracy theories can directly effect troop allocation. Granted, I'm no conspiracy theorist. Just a thought.

The problem is that there are some here that are. And they will jump at any opportunity to jump on the CT bandwagon, and try to win over converts to the "Church of the Illuminati".

 

[sambino510]

I think another reason is our abandonment of Afghanistan after they finished defeating the Russians in the 80s. We promised all sorts of infrastructural improvement and then simply forgot about them once the job was finished. Osama Bin Laden was one of these rebels fighting in Afghanistan, and I'm sure did not forget this.

Well, you have to realize that this is something I have long thought was our #2 most boneheaded mistake in the 20th century. Right behind throwing Uncle Ho under the bus after the end of WWII. I have long thought we should have told the French "OK, you can move back into Indochina, but only with a 5 year plan for granting them their freedom."

Much as we did with the Philippines. The stupidest thing we did was to not protest when they tried to become a Colonial Power again after being destroyed after WWII.

And not helping rebuild Afghanistan after the Soviet-Afghan War was #2. However, you also have to remember that the largest opponent of the Taliban (and the individual that Al-Qaeda assassinated right before 9-11 was the leader of the Northern Alliance, which was primarily made up of the Mujahedeen that the US supported (the US did not support AQ or the Taliban).

I suppose I'm not that big of a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't mean those theories aren't true, but it seems to me that there is ample evidence that 9/11 was done by a bunch of Al Qaeda Saudis led by Bin Laden. Sure, I suppose it's possible that the government or whoever did it and that Al Qaeda is simply taking credit for it, but I don't see the reasoning behind that at all. As messed up as our government can be at times, killing 3,000 people simply to justify a war in the Middle East seems a little elaborate.

Not to mention that was not the first attack on the WTC by OBL. For some reason everybody seems to forget the 1993 attack.

If this is some kind of conspiracy, it dates back through at least 3 Presidential Administrations, and that simply become implausible to the extreme.



Prior to the 1960's, the ME was largely considered by most to be the "armpit of the world", only wanted by lunatics, Arabs and Jews. In fact, that land was considered so worthless by most that controlled it that other then a few choice locations (the Nile, Jerusalem, etc) nobody really cared what went on there, or what they thought.

And the "Arabs" largely did not care what the rest of the world thought. They primarily wanted to just be left alone. Until the discovery of oil, they mostly used European Powers against European Powers, knowing that eventually they would leave and things would return to normal.

And there is no "sudden rise" of terrorism. It has been in place since the end of WWII, it simply did not touch the US much because we really did not have many assets over there (other then our relationship with the Shah).

And actually if you look at the 1960's and 1970's, we were quite opposed with most Arab nations. Are you aware that during the Arab-Israeli Wars, we supported the only 2 nations that were not attackers? For all of the vinegar spread now by Iran, that nation never took part in the wars against Israel. Our relations at the time were much less cordial with those opposed to Israel, and those are generally the ones we get along with best today.

I can't tell you how many troops we had installed in the Islamic Holy Land of Saudi Arabia (commonly referred to as Mecca) but you probably can find out via Google. I can assure you we did have an air base there which we promised to remove immediately after Operation Desert Storm, which we not only failed to do but proceeded to expand and gradually increase the number of personnel.

I am sorry, Saudi Arabia is not the "Islamic Holy Land". And Saudi Arabia is also not "Mecca". You really need to try and bother to learn a little about Islam, because you are coming off like an ignorant Isamophobe at the moment.

And yes, we maintained a presence at KKMC, because Saudi Arabia Asked Us To. That was because of how Saudi Arabia felt about the Iraqi No Fly Zone, which they were one of the main petitioners to the UN to extend indefinitely.

And without an air base in Saudi Arabia, we could not have maintained an almost decade long UN mandate active.

It is not like we just moved in and refused to go. Saudi Arabia by their own choice became the home of the Coalition and UN forces that was enforcing the UN No Fly Zone. At any time Saudi Arabia could have withdrawn their support for this UN mission, and we would have left. But they kept them in place, because they had legitimate reasons to fear Iraq.

I agree with this. It seems too often our government associates the wrong thing as the reason for why we have been able to prevent terrorism since 9/11, whether it's fractured leadership due to the drone program or surveillance programs.

We have been able to curtail terrorist attacks, but certainly not "prevent" it. We have largely been able to largely prevent it from striking directly on US soil, but not eliminated it (not even on US soil).

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the very short attention spans of Americans. Just today I was talking to my roomie (who is in her 60's), and she had absolutely forgotten that the WTC had been attacked in 1993. And she said she had never heard of the Millennium Plot, and had also forgotten about the plot against Fort Dix.

And there are still hundreds (if not thousands) of attacks elsewhere around the world, from Mahadobhi Temple to Israel.

We in reality have not done a lot to stop "terrorism". Other then very rare instances that never really impacted the US, and is still does not today. Most of those that die from it live in that area.

Totally agree with what you've said. Our abandonment of Afghanistan and Vietnam was an incredible mistake in foreign policy, similar to our lack of aid to Europe following World War I. What was that you mentioned about the Philippines becoming a colonial power though? Not sure I understood that point.

I agree too that we haven't really stopped terrorism, I was simply stating that if we are to assume that we HAVE stopped terrorism then these programs often get too much credit.

Funny that I, too, forgot about previous attacks on the WTC. That does seem to blow a whole in the conspiracy theories.

 

[Auteur]

Prior to the 1960's, the ME was largely considered by most to be the "armpit of the world", only wanted by lunatics, Arabs and Jews. In fact, that land was considered so worthless by most that controlled it that other then a few choice locations (the Nile, Jerusalem, etc) nobody really cared what went on there, or what they thought.

And the "Arabs" largely did not care what the rest of the world thought. They primarily wanted to just be left alone. Until the discovery of oil, they mostly used European Powers against European Powers, knowing that eventually they would leave and things would return to normal.

And there is no "sudden rise" of terrorism. It has been in place since the end of WWII, it simply did not touch the US much because we really did not have many assets over there (other then our relationship with the Shah).

And actually if you look at the 1960's and 1970's, we were quite opposed with most Arab nations. Are you aware that during the Arab-Israeli Wars, we supported the only 2 nations that were not attackers? For all of the vinegar spread now by Iran, that nation never took part in the wars against Israel. Our relations at the time were much less cordial with those opposed to Israel, and those are generally the ones we get along with best today.

The events that started off the split we see today between the Arab world and the US were the cold war division of the region, with the Soviets arming Arab states such as Egypt and Syria, and more importantly, America's strong tilt towards Israel, starting with the Nixon administration, and Henry Kissinger, in the mid '60s. This was quite a shift from the decade previous, where Eisenhower told Britain, France, and Israel to get out of Egypt during the Suez War of 1956.

Israel is seen as a violent interloper in the region, and ongoing, unquestioning US support has served to harden feelings over the years. The cold war divisions have evaporated, but the Israel/Arab dispute has festered and caused ever more extremism.

Before '79, the US was a strong supporter of the Iranian (not actually Arab) administration, but here again, the US had sown the seeds of future discontent. The CIA backed overthrow of a democratic government in 1953, and the support of what was seen as a repressive dictatorship by many in that country, meant that animosity would surface after the revolution.

It has been the continual emphasis on narrow, short term self interest, rather than strategic well being, ethical considerations, and, as you suggest yourself, a cavalier reading of history that has gotten the US into so many troubles since 1945.

 

[Survivalist]

A little thought experiment for you Mr S: You are born with a Confederate flag tatooed to your forehead. You can't get it off. When people look at you, they tend to have a judgement. This is bad enough in the swamp, but ma and pa also travel to places like San Fransisco, and New York. People there have a definite reaction. The more enlightened and educated realize this is just a tatoo, and it is very unlikely you put it there yourself. Unfortunately for your young and impressionable mind, there are others of a more simplistic constitution, who believe that what you see is what you get. No point in thinking much more deeply about it than that. Your flag indicates your behavior and intelligence. Action begets reaction, and soon your young life is full of animosities and resentments for the treatment you have received. In later life, you may be a bit more philosophical about this, but in your teens and 20's, with hormones exploding, negative consequences occur.

Get the picture? Blacks have a tatoo also- one they can't take off. It affects there interactions with others (well, some others....) It's called environmental influences, and it is what is missing from your so called "studies".

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?

You are at least keeping your sense of humour here Mr S. Have you forgotten that your own country has just finished rampaging through two countries?

Yes I live next to a small swamp, but as a survivalist, I live in a subdivision with an armed guard, alarm system and barking dog and some guns locked-up as backup---as you could imagine. There is very little crime in our rural/suburban county---maybe 1 or 2 murders a year. In the dangerous urban city in the country next to us, they have 50 to 100 murders a year, just in the city alone. Like about every dangerous city, it is virtually all non-White/Asian vs non-White/Asian crime. The causes of "racism" and "slavery" and "Jim Crow" only seem to cause all the crime across the river. These magical forces seem to have a greater effect over in that city. The criminals and those with criminal tendencies know they will likely face harsh punishment if caught doing crimes in our county---so crime is much lower.

I'm not a toothless Redneck and have no tattoos of any kind. I have been to 11 different countries, lived in Europe for 2 years, lived in six different states and traveled around much of America. I work with almost as many Blacks as Whites plus the various others that come here legally or illegally. My family is from the American West and I was born near Los Angeles.

As for you, you don't appear so worldly. Perhaps if you were to take some college classes, especially some in science, statistics or genetics, you could better understand the studies I've shown you.

As I have attempted to show, with the best science available, heredity is about 80% of the person's or group's potential. Other factors like the environment and history of racism or slavery is mainly the rest. I try to hold Whites to the same standards as everyone else. Try to think of the good things they have been the first to give the world: most modern inventions like electricity, modern medicine, charitable institutions like the Red Cross, and democracy. The Scandinavians were also the first people to outlaw slavery.

 

[sambino510]

A little thought experiment for you Mr S: You are born with a Confederate flag tatooed to your forehead. You can't get it off. When people look at you, they tend to have a judgement. This is bad enough in the swamp, but ma and pa also travel to places like San Fransisco, and New York. People there have a definite reaction. The more enlightened and educated realize this is just a tatoo, and it is very unlikely you put it there yourself. Unfortunately for your young and impressionable mind, there are others of a more simplistic constitution, who believe that what you see is what you get. No point in thinking much more deeply about it than that. Your flag indicates your behavior and intelligence. Action begets reaction, and soon your young life is full of animosities and resentments for the treatment you have received. In later life, you may be a bit more philosophical about this, but in your teens and 20's, with hormones exploding, negative consequences occur.

Get the picture? Blacks have a tatoo also- one they can't take off. It affects there interactions with others (well, some others....) It's called environmental influences, and it is what is missing from your so called "studies".



You are at least keeping your sense of humour here Mr S. Have you forgotten that your own country has just finished rampaging through two countries?

Yes I live next to a small swamp, but as a survivalist, I live in a subdivision with an armed guard, alarm system and barking dog and some guns locked-up as backup---as you could imagine. There is very little crime in our rural/suburban county---maybe 1 or 2 murders a year. In the dangerous urban city in the country next to us, they have 50 to 100 murders a year, just in the city alone. Like about every dangerous city, it is virtually all non-White/Asian vs non-White/Asian crime. The causes of "racism" and "slavery" and "Jim Crow" only seem to cause all the crime across the river. These magical forces seem to have a greater effect over in that city. The criminals and those with criminal tendencies know they will likely face harsh punishment if caught doing crimes in our county---so crime is much lower.

I'm not a toothless Redneck and have no tattoos of any kind. I have been to 11 different countries, lived in Europe for 2 years, lived in six different states and traveled around much of America. I work with almost as many Blacks as Whites plus the various others that come here legally or illegally. My family is from the American West and I was born near Los Angeles.

As for you, you don't appear so worldly. Perhaps if you were to take some college classes, especially some in science, statistics or genetics, you could better understand the studies I've shown you.

As I have attempted to show, with the best science available, heredity is about 80% of the person's or group's potential. Other factors like the environment and history of racism or slavery is mainly the rest. I try to hold Whites to the same standards as everyone else. Try to think of the good things they have been the first to give the world: most modern inventions like electricity, modern medicine, charitable institutions like the Red Cross, and democracy. The Scandinavians were also the first people to outlaw slavery.

No one here is trying to say the white man is to blame for all the world's problems. I think we're responsible for many things but it's not productive to blame any one race. Yes, we've obviously accomplished many things in terms of technology and whatnot, but our economies while we had the luxury of development were supported off the backs of our slave labor, and then our low-income labor. First it was slavery, then the Gold Rush, then railroads, agriculture, factories, and so on. Asians, Blacks, Filipinos, and Mexicans all had a huge role in American economic development; not necessarily the technological part of it, but the manpower yes.

And sure, I have no doubt that the city next to you has many more murders a year than a rural town. Whether that's because criminals are scared of the consequences they'd face in your particular county, I'm not so sure. Either way, I assume we all want to FIX these problems, and I don't think avoiding urban metropolises and letting them fester is the way to go. Nor is thinking that scaring the hell out of them is an effective method for preventing crime, that's applying a rational solution to an often irrational set of people.

And as far as college goes, I'm once again in college right now and you can't simply tell someone to "take college classes" in order to understand your statistics. College professors themselves have a wide array of opinions.

 

[Survivalist]

Once again we are obviously very far apart on our world view and view of race, and that's fine. I doubt you will be convinced that all races are biologically equal, or that I'll be convinced that they're not. I still appreciate the debate. Your point that white people have not done anything violent in the past 60 years is both irrelevant and untrue in my opinion. It's irrelevant because no matter what time of history a race commits violent acts, it still proves that psychologically they are capable of it. It's untrue because there are indeed wars like the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. that are all demonstrations of white violence, no matter what our purposes behind it were. What stands out to me was the Vietnam war, where soldiers would raid villages like My Lai and burn them down, rape the women, and kill most of the villagers. That sounds like pretty violent behavior to me, and that was only 50 years ago.

If a black child is adopted by white parents, that doesn't mean they are A. good parents or B. he is necessarily in an environment to learn and improve. You can't put a tax attorney and a pharmacist together and say they're automatically going to produce a good child.

In my opinion IQ is just as "subjective" as the other sciences you state, and is not at all an omniscient factor when trying to judge someone's intellectual ability. Your theory that these sciences are influenced by political factors, though not necessarily untrue, seems a little paranoid. If we are to assume they are influenced by politics, I would argue it's many more sciences than just those few.

Whether my perspective is right or yours is, I fail to see how it's productive to speak of certain races as superior or inferior to others. It's divisive and it's the Old World's way of thinking. Whether it was slaves in the field or the Chinese building our railroads, white people have always looked at these other races as inferior savages, who were at best disciplined and obedient enough to help us build up our country. If there is any proven, universal biological science to prove to me that some races are inferior, I would probably choose to ignore it, and continue viewing them all as equals in order to promote more unity. Otherwise, we're absolutely destined to repeat the same mistakes of the past.

You understand and base your thinking on what you experience and what you are told. You said before you are only 20. I am older, but age does not always guarantee wisdom or insight. I could flood you with other evidence, but I'll let you figure it on your own. I've been around very diverse groups of people with many different jobs and at many different schools.

Liberals will look at the very best and brightest of the bunch: Obama, Colin Powell, Oprah or Bill Cosby. These folks are the top 1%---and liberals can assume anyone can be one of them. The trouble lies in the fact that Blacks are one whole standard deviation off from most everyone else. There are more Trayvon Martins than there are Colin Powells in the Black population. Who are the ones rioting down the road in Oakland for no good reason? Is it paranoia, or common horse sense that keeps you from going down there to reason with them?

People don't want to live an ancient hunter-gathering existence if they can avoid it. The Eskimos have all traded in their igloos for homes with modern appliances. They have mostly converted to snowmobiles and trucks from dog sleds and all depend on planes and ships for supplies. You can't be dumb and live in the Artic, or you'll die fast.

A fair climate in the Tropics allows the remaining ancient peoples who live there without having to advance very much. Based on biological differences that do exist, much to your disliking, one can understand why certain groups of people have not advanced into the modern world. Evidence shows that it takes an average IQ of 100 for a modern culture to be reached AND maintained. You can dig wells, build roads and schools, spend all kinds of money, but places like Borneo and Sierra Leone stay backwards and deteriorated. Ditto for our ghettos.

Back during Vietnam, it was not uncommon for leftists in the Bay Area of Frisco to spit on the returning soldiers. Some of this mentality has rubbed off on you. Seems like you only have dwelled upon the atrocities of our soldiers and have said nothing about the sadistic torture and many other atrocities the Viet-commies committed against our troops and their own people in far, far greater amounts. Ever wonder why there were so many boat people desperate to get away from them in 1975? If the American (Whites) were so savage and intolerant, why did the vast majority of them end up coming here?

 

[numan]

I don't know about the rest of you, but it's absolutely astonishing that there have not been more terrorist attacks, just in history in general. It's so, so easy to scare people....

Our country could be in complete chaos.

Our country IS in complete chaos. People with chaotic minds just don't notice.

Why would our rulers create more attacks? They got the totalitarian "Patriot" Act they wanted.

By the way, if you manage to live through most of this century, you will not think that there were few terrorist attacks.
.

 

[sambino510]

Once again we are obviously very far apart on our world view and view of race, and that's fine. I doubt you will be convinced that all races are biologically equal, or that I'll be convinced that they're not. I still appreciate the debate. Your point that white people have not done anything violent in the past 60 years is both irrelevant and untrue in my opinion. It's irrelevant because no matter what time of history a race commits violent acts, it still proves that psychologically they are capable of it. It's untrue because there are indeed wars like the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. that are all demonstrations of white violence, no matter what our purposes behind it were. What stands out to me was the Vietnam war, where soldiers would raid villages like My Lai and burn them down, rape the women, and kill most of the villagers. That sounds like pretty violent behavior to me, and that was only 50 years ago.

If a black child is adopted by white parents, that doesn't mean they are A. good parents or B. he is necessarily in an environment to learn and improve. You can't put a tax attorney and a pharmacist together and say they're automatically going to produce a good child.

In my opinion IQ is just as "subjective" as the other sciences you state, and is not at all an omniscient factor when trying to judge someone's intellectual ability. Your theory that these sciences are influenced by political factors, though not necessarily untrue, seems a little paranoid. If we are to assume they are influenced by politics, I would argue it's many more sciences than just those few.

Whether my perspective is right or yours is, I fail to see how it's productive to speak of certain races as superior or inferior to others. It's divisive and it's the Old World's way of thinking. Whether it was slaves in the field or the Chinese building our railroads, white people have always looked at these other races as inferior savages, who were at best disciplined and obedient enough to help us build up our country. If there is any proven, universal biological science to prove to me that some races are inferior, I would probably choose to ignore it, and continue viewing them all as equals in order to promote more unity. Otherwise, we're absolutely destined to repeat the same mistakes of the past.

You understand and base your thinking on what you experience and what you are told. You said before you are only 20. I am older, but age does not always guarantee wisdom or insight. I could flood you with other evidence, but I'll let you figure it on your own. I've been around very diverse groups of people with many different jobs and at many different schools.

Liberals will look at the very best and brightest of the bunch: Obama, Colin Powell, Oprah or Bill Cosby. These folks are the top 1%---and liberals can assume anyone can be one of them. The trouble lies in the fact that Blacks are one whole standard deviation off from most everyone else. There are more Trayvon Martins than there are Colin Powells in the Black population. Who are the ones rioting down the road in Oakland for no good reason? Is it paranoia, or common horse sense that keeps you from going down there to reason with them?

People don't want to live an ancient hunter-gathering existence if they can avoid it. The Eskimos have all traded in their igloos for homes with modern appliances. They have mostly converted to snowmobiles and trucks from dog sleds and all depend on planes and ships for supplies. You can't be dumb and live in the Artic, or you'll die fast.

A fair climate in the Tropics allows the remaining ancient peoples who live there without having to advance very much. Based on biological differences that do exist, much to your disliking, one can understand why certain groups of people have not advanced into the modern world. Evidence shows that it takes an average IQ of 100 for a modern culture to be reached AND maintained. You can dig wells, build roads and schools, spend all kinds of money, but places like Borneo and Sierra Leone stay backwards and deteriorated. Ditto for our ghettos.

Back during Vietnam, it was not uncommon for leftists in the Bay Area of Frisco to spit on the returning soldiers. Some of this mentality has rubbed off on you. Seems like you only have dwelled upon the atrocities of our soldiers and have said nothing about the sadistic torture and many other atrocities the Viet-commies committed against our troops and their own people in far, far greater amounts. Ever wonder why there were so many boat people desperate to get away from them in 1975? If the American (Whites) were so savage and intolerant, why did the vast majority of them end up coming here?

Do you not also base your opinions on the same thing? We all are influenced by such things, and form our views through hear-say, books, education, experiences, whatever. I'm no different from you, and like you said I cannot assume you know what you're talking about and you can't assume I don't know what I'm talking about, or vice versa. We're just different.

I'm aware of Obama and Oprah being the exceptions to the rule, and in that lies the problem. I still think biologically, psychologically, black people, Asians, whoever are capable of anything. However, we do not all necessarily receive the same opportunities, and that is where the differences often lie.

I think it's completely untrue that nobody lives a rural, underdeveloped lifestyle by choice; that is a huge generalization. I have no doubt that there are many tribes where if we started giving them Ipads and cars they would tell us to get the hell out and leave them be. Some people would argue that these tribes simply haven't been exposed to the luxuries of life, and thus don't know any better than their primitive ways. But how about the homeless people on the streets of San Francisco, where I now live? They know what they could have if they applied themselves, but they choose that nomadic, homeless lifestyle. These people aren't so incapable of intelligent thought that they don't know what they're missing out on.

Once again, as I said before IQ is not the golden determination of intelligence, and I refuse to use those tests as a way to judge between different races. Those tests have all sorts of strange questions, ones that people in the ghetto or who live certain lifestyles around the world might not understand or have the same answers that a person in a developed society would have. A villager may know how to skin a rabbit, while I do not. I may know how to use a library database, while they do not. That doesn't reflect intelligence.

I do not believe it was right to spit on the soldiers who returned, though I would appreciate if you didn't single out the Bay Area and San Francisco as a bunch of disrespectful piles of garbage. Nor should you ever, ever include me in a group that would spit on or disrespect a single human being on this Earth. Frankly, you don't know me, as I don't know you. This is where I've grown up, and though there are some extreme views we are often very respectful and intelligent. I don't care if you disagree with liberal viewpoints, that's perfectly fine, as I disagree with some too, but you have to show them respect, as they have to show you respect. Calling them "liberhoids" or "libbies" and all that junk is completely unproductive. (Not saying you do this, but many people posting do.)

That being said, let's not pretend there were not great atrocities committed by our troops. Let's also never forget the crimes committed by the North Vietnamese, Viet Cong, and Khmer Rouge. I'm aware of the story of boat people, as I grew up with their children. They came to America because America OFFERED to take them in in order to gain sympathy for the U.S. government's operations in Vietnam. America had specific programs aimed at bringing over Vietnamese refugees, spreading them all throughout the country.

How different are they really though? Ho Chi Minh's followers? They felt they could solve problems with violence, as do we. Are we to judge right and wrong in Vietnam by who committed MORE atrocities? Hypothetically, if our troops committed 20% of civilian deaths (a random number) and the Viet Cong committed 80%, are we really on the moral high ground? I think the Vietnamese villagers wouldn't want either one of us there and just want to be left alone.

We're all the same. We are all victims of this ideology that this world will be a better place if we just kill the right people. Personally, I actually liked Ho Chi Minh, as a leader anyways, not necessarily his actions or the nefarious killings of his followers and such. The man just wanted independence in Vietnam, and a unified Vietnam. I agree with the ends, not so much the means. All in all, the Diem regime in South Vietnam supported by the U.S. government was no better though. They did things just as bad as the North Vietnamese.

And Trayvon Martin is a whole other story, but he was just a young kid caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm not jumping on that bandwagon of support for him, but I do feel that Zimmerman was guilty of SOME crime. I just do not feel rioting and breaking windows is the right way of expressing my feelings. However, some people in this world know no other way of making their voices heard, and resort to things like that to get attention. Terrorists are the same way. We must not condone the rioters in Oakland and elsewhere, but try to understand them, just as we must try to understand all crime in this world and the underlying factors.

 

[sambino510]

I don't know about the rest of you, but it's absolutely astonishing that there have not been more terrorist attacks, just in history in general. It's so, so easy to scare people....

Our country could be in complete chaos.

Our country IS in complete chaos. People with chaotic minds just don't notice.

Why would our rulers create more attacks? They got the totalitarian "Patriot" Act they wanted.

By the way, if you manage to live through most of this century, you will not think that there were few terrorist attacks.
.

I use the phrase "terrorist attacks", but what I really mean is crime in general. With the economy in shambles and so many people pissed off about social change, how is there not more crime? Many, many people have guns, and have enough pent up rage to use them, so why are there not more home robberies? Murders? It's just amazing to me, and really I think it's testament to a natural human tendency towards NON-violence if anything.

You're sadly right however that terrorism is not going away any time soon, I just think it will be more common in Iraq and Afghanistan and such and not so much in America.

 

[numan]

You're sadly right however that terrorism is not going away any time soon, I just think it will be more common in Iraq and Afghanistan and such and not so much in America.

That will depend on whether the Military-Industrial Complex can profit more by tearing apart and then re-building Iraq and Afghanistan, or whether they can profit more by tearing apart and re-building the USA.

.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

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.

You seem impressed by the fact that Powell apologized for what he did, which in the final analysis was to consciously prostitute his reputation by betraying the trust of this Nation in order to facilitate the invasion of a non-aggressive country. You address this issue as if he were apologizing for causing a minor traffic accident.

What Powell did is absolutely unforgivable. He is directly responsible for one of the most egregious mass crimes of the century -- for which he remains wholly unpunished and free to enjoy his retirement.

How many American deaths and maiming resulted from the Iraq invasion? How many innocent Iraqi deaths and maiming resulted from it? How much has it cost us in terms of treasure and national reputation? What has it cost our allies? What has it cost the Iraqi people?

That sonofabitch apologizes for enabling it -- and you think that's pretty good? He should be apologizing on a scaffold with a noose around his neck. Then it might have some meaning.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

I am sorry, Saudi Arabia is not the "Islamic Holy Land". And Saudi Arabia is also not "Mecca". You really need to try and bother to learn a little about Islam, because you are coming off like an ignorant Isamophobe at the moment.

[...]

(Excerpt)


Since Saudi Arabia houses the holiest sites in Islam (Mecca and Medina) — many Muslims were upset at the permanent military presence. The continued presence of US troops after the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia was one of the stated motivations behind the September 11th terrorist attacks[1] and the Khobar Towers bombing. The date of the 1998 United States embassy bombings was eight years to the day (August 7) that American troops were sent to Saudi Arabia.[2] Bin Laden interpreted the Prophet Muhammad as banning the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia".

United States withdrawal from Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Close)

If you think of yourself as a scholar on mid-East affairs and Islamic geography I make no such claim nor have I any such academic awareness -- or interest. I readily admit to being relatively ignorant about such details. What I do know is what I derive from credible sources, which is what I've put forth, such as Osama bin Laden instigated the 9/11 attack because of our support of Israel and because of the presence of our troops on what he referred to as the Islamic Holy Land. And my source of that information is the horse's mouth.

Who Is Bin Laden? - Interview With Osama Bin Laden (in May 1998) | Hunting Bin Laden | FRONTLINE | PBS

That aside I would like you to tell me what (specifically) I've said that suggests (to you) I am an "Islamophobe?" Normally I am denounced as an anti-Semite because I advocate withdrawal of U.S. support of Israel. So what has conveyed this ethnicity-based impression to you.

PS: Are you a negro?

 

[SayMyName]

We manufacture enemies better than any other country on the planet.

True. True.

 

[Auteur]

A little thought experiment for you Mr S: You are born with a Confederate flag tatooed to your forehead. You can't get it off. When people look at you, they tend to have a judgement. This is bad enough in the swamp, but ma and pa also travel to places like San Fransisco, and New York. People there have a definite reaction. The more enlightened and educated realize this is just a tatoo, and it is very unlikely you put it there yourself. Unfortunately for your young and impressionable mind, there are others of a more simplistic constitution, who believe that what you see is what you get. No point in thinking much more deeply about it than that. Your flag indicates your behavior and intelligence. Action begets reaction, and soon your young life is full of animosities and resentments for the treatment you have received. In later life, you may be a bit more philosophical about this, but in your teens and 20's, with hormones exploding, negative consequences occur.

Get the picture? Blacks have a tatoo also- one they can't take off. It affects there interactions with others (well, some others....) It's called environmental influences, and it is what is missing from your so called "studies".



You are at least keeping your sense of humour here Mr S. Have you forgotten that your own country has just finished rampaging through two countries?

Yes I live next to a small swamp, but as a survivalist, I live in a subdivision with an armed guard, alarm system and barking dog and some guns locked-up as backup---as you could imagine. There is very little crime in our rural/suburban county---maybe 1 or 2 murders a year. In the dangerous urban city in the country next to us, they have 50 to 100 murders a year, just in the city alone. Like about every dangerous city, it is virtually all non-White/Asian vs non-White/Asian crime. The causes of "racism" and "slavery" and "Jim Crow" only seem to cause all the crime across the river. These magical forces seem to have a greater effect over in that city. The criminals and those with criminal tendencies know they will likely face harsh punishment if caught doing crimes in our county---so crime is much lower.

There is of course an irony here, in that you deny the environment having a major effect on minorities, yet here you are, locked up behind your guns and gates, a product of your own experiences and perceptions of the world.

I too live in a relatively small town, not far from a big city. The murder rate here is very low, in fact about the same as you describe for your own community. It is just slightly higher in the big city, as one would expect, as that is where the action is. There are gangs in the city, currently fighting it out for control of the drug trade. These lads are shooting each other with the very small number of handguns that make it into the country illegally. They are, in large measure, white kids, with Anglo-Saxon names. Yet both these places are very multicultural, especially the city, which is almost half visible minorities. So what gives? Even the larger city has a murder rate much lower than an equivalent location in the US. What gives is that it is Canada, and there are much fewer guns around, and also less racial and class animosity. And, locked communities with armed guards are nowhere to be seen.

While there is no doubt some inherited traits affect behavior, intelligence, and even more so violence, are too complex to assign to a particular set of genes, and say: there you are, it's those, the last three on the end. Snip those off and your kid will do better. Even the definition of intelligence is ill defined in the literature.

Unfortunately, there is a wave of anti-intellectualism that is fashionable in the US today. This is manifested in groups like the Tea Party, Birthers, conspiracy theorists, religious fundamentalists, and others. Some even want to deny evolution, and instead teach magic in the school systems. This is no trivial event. Of those that voted a couple of elections ago, nearly one half indicted on their ballots that they thought Sarah Palin would be a good vice president. Sorry to tell you that very many of these folks are white. I'm not too surprised that those on the bottom of the socio-economic scale in such a society do not do well on (some) measures of intelligence (there are many).

I'm not a toothless Redneck and have no tattoos of any kind. I have been to 11 different countries, lived in Europe for 2 years, lived in six different states and traveled around much of America. I work with almost as many Blacks as Whites plus the various others that come here legally or illegally. My family is from the American West and I was born near Los Angeles.

As for you, you don't appear so worldly. Perhaps if you were to take some college classes, especially some in science, statistics or genetics, you could better understand the studies I've shown you.

As I have attempted to show, with the best science available, heredity is about 80% of the person's or group's potential. Other factors like the environment and history of racism or slavery is mainly the rest.

You have shown nothing. A link to a dubious wikipedia article, one that includes dissenting opinions (and rightly so), is not scientific evidence. This is a vast subject, and grabbing a figure from whatever pops up on the net is not proof positive.

Here is just one article that discusses how tough it is to actually glean truth out of statisitics.

http://www.le.ac.uk/psychology/amc/aspeinte.pdf

I try to hold Whites to the same standards as everyone else. Try to think of the good things they have been the first to give the world: most modern inventions like electricity, modern medicine, charitable institutions like the Red Cross, and democracy. The Scandinavians were also the first people to outlaw slavery.

Please. White Americans were some of the last to outlaw slavery among the major nations, and they didn't quit without a fight, and plenty of demonstrations of violence and crime.

Historical and geographical factors can explain a lot in who invented what. Those that industrialized first, for example, had a great advantage (think of your own former colonial masters). Certain events can lead to exponential change, for a while anyway, until other factors move in, or other socities rise up. A good example is China today. A few decades ago, China was considered nothing- a prostrate backwater. Now that they have gathered some momentum, they are doing exactly the same things as the west- such as offering California advice on building high speed rail.

 

[Survivalist]

There is of course an irony here, in that you deny the environment having a major effect on minorities, yet here you are, locked up behind your guns and gates, a product of your own experiences and perceptions of the world.

I too live in a relatively small town, not far from a big city. The murder rate here is very low, in fact about the same as you describe for your own community. It is just slightly higher in the big city, as one would expect, as that is where the action is. There are gangs in the city, currently fighting it out for control of the drug trade. These lads are shooting each other with the very small number of handguns that make it into the country illegally. They are, in large measure, white kids, with Anglo-Saxon names. Yet both these places are very multicultural, especially the city, which is almost half visible minorities. So what gives? Even the larger city has a murder rate much lower than an equivalent location in the US. What gives is that it is Canada, and there are much fewer guns around, and also less racial and class animosity. And, locked communities with armed guards are nowhere to be seen.

While there is no doubt some inherited traits affect behavior, intelligence, and even more so violence, are too complex to assign to a particular set of genes, and say: there you are, it's those, the last three on the end. Snip those off and your kid will do better. Even the definition of intelligence is ill defined in the literature.

Unfortunately, there is a wave of anti-intellectualism that is fashionable in the US today. This is manifested in groups like the Tea Party, Birthers, conspiracy theorists, religious fundamentalists, and others. Some even want to deny evolution, and instead teach magic in the school systems. This is no trivial event. Of those that voted a couple of elections ago, nearly one half indicted on their ballots that they thought Sarah Palin would be a good vice president. Sorry to tell you that very many of these folks are white. I'm not too surprised that those on the bottom of the socio-economic scale in such a society do not do well on (some) measures of intelligence (there are many).



You have shown nothing. A link to a dubious wikipedia article, one that includes dissenting opinions (and rightly so), is not scientific evidence. This is a vast subject, and grabbing a figure from whatever pops up on the net is not proof positive.

Here is just one article that discusses how tough it is to actually glean truth out of statisitics.

http://www.le.ac.uk/psychology/amc/aspeinte.pdf

I try to hold Whites to the same standards as everyone else. Try to think of the good things they have been the first to give the world: most modern inventions like electricity, modern medicine, charitable institutions like the Red Cross, and democracy. The Scandinavians were also the first people to outlaw slavery.

Please. White Americans were some of the last to outlaw slavery among the major nations, and they didn't quit without a fight, and plenty of demonstrations of violence and crime.

Historical and geographical factors can explain a lot in who invented what. Those that industrialized first, for example, had a great advantage (think of your own former colonial masters). Certain events can lead to exponential change, for a while anyway, until other factors move in, or other socities rise up. A good example is China today. A few decades ago, China was considered nothing- a prostrate backwater. Now that they have gathered some momentum, they are doing exactly the same things as the west- such as offering California advice on building high speed rail.

I use the summaries of the tests from Wikipedia so that any layman following this discussion can get more from it. I always try to use the most simple terms and concepts. Your article above is a bit outdated, it didn't cover the two adoption studies done, because they were suppressed until 2006. The intellectuals can debate what IQ is and how relevant it is, but I think you, like many of them, can't see the forest because of the trees. What does the sum of all these tests show? Why did China and Singapore advance so quickly and why do others stagnate? The obvious answer is that genetic differences are the primary cause. A remote village in the backwaters of China is far and away more advanced than a backwater village in the Congo.

It will never happen, but to understand the nature/nurture problem there should be a worldwide study. Test samples of most ethnic groups would be gathered from very randomised samples of the same age group. Using the last digit of national ID's would be a good idea. The DNA of each person would be drawn to find ethnic purity. Basic IQ tests like digit span tests could be done, along with MRI's to map differences in brain morphology. Once there is finally some very good scientific DNA tests done, then can all the other nurture effects be quantified.

As for the slavery thing. The last nation to outlaw it was Saudi Arabia in the 1960's. It still goes on in Africa, the mid East and Southern Asia---but just as long as Whites aren't enslaving Blacks---it is tolerated and not shown on the evening news.

 

[sambino510]

There is of course an irony here, in that you deny the environment having a major effect on minorities, yet here you are, locked up behind your guns and gates, a product of your own experiences and perceptions of the world.

I too live in a relatively small town, not far from a big city. The murder rate here is very low, in fact about the same as you describe for your own community. It is just slightly higher in the big city, as one would expect, as that is where the action is. There are gangs in the city, currently fighting it out for control of the drug trade. These lads are shooting each other with the very small number of handguns that make it into the country illegally. They are, in large measure, white kids, with Anglo-Saxon names. Yet both these places are very multicultural, especially the city, which is almost half visible minorities. So what gives? Even the larger city has a murder rate much lower than an equivalent location in the US. What gives is that it is Canada, and there are much fewer guns around, and also less racial and class animosity. And, locked communities with armed guards are nowhere to be seen.

While there is no doubt some inherited traits affect behavior, intelligence, and even more so violence, are too complex to assign to a particular set of genes, and say: there you are, it's those, the last three on the end. Snip those off and your kid will do better. Even the definition of intelligence is ill defined in the literature.

Unfortunately, there is a wave of anti-intellectualism that is fashionable in the US today. This is manifested in groups like the Tea Party, Birthers, conspiracy theorists, religious fundamentalists, and others. Some even want to deny evolution, and instead teach magic in the school systems. This is no trivial event. Of those that voted a couple of elections ago, nearly one half indicted on their ballots that they thought Sarah Palin would be a good vice president. Sorry to tell you that very many of these folks are white. I'm not too surprised that those on the bottom of the socio-economic scale in such a society do not do well on (some) measures of intelligence (there are many).



You have shown nothing. A link to a dubious wikipedia article, one that includes dissenting opinions (and rightly so), is not scientific evidence. This is a vast subject, and grabbing a figure from whatever pops up on the net is not proof positive.

Here is just one article that discusses how tough it is to actually glean truth out of statisitics.

http://www.le.ac.uk/psychology/amc/aspeinte.pdf



Please. White Americans were some of the last to outlaw slavery among the major nations, and they didn't quit without a fight, and plenty of demonstrations of violence and crime.

Historical and geographical factors can explain a lot in who invented what. Those that industrialized first, for example, had a great advantage (think of your own former colonial masters). Certain events can lead to exponential change, for a while anyway, until other factors move in, or other socities rise up. A good example is China today. A few decades ago, China was considered nothing- a prostrate backwater. Now that they have gathered some momentum, they are doing exactly the same things as the west- such as offering California advice on building high speed rail.

I use the summaries of the tests from Wikipedia so that any layman following this discussion can get more from it. I always try to use the most simple terms and concepts. Your article above is a bit outdated, it didn't cover the two adoption studies done, because they were suppressed until 2006. The intellectuals can debate what IQ is and how relevant it is, but I think you, like many of them, can't see the forest because of the trees. What does the sum of all these tests show? Why did China and Singapore advance so quickly and why do others stagnate? The obvious answer is that genetic differences are the primary cause. A remote village in the backwaters of China is far and away more advanced than a backwater village in the Congo.

It will never happen, but to understand the nature/nurture problem there should be a worldwide study. Test samples of most ethnic groups would be gathered from very randomised samples of the same age group. Using the last digit of national ID's would be a good idea. The DNA of each person would be drawn to find ethnic purity. Basic IQ tests like digit span tests could be done, along with MRI's to map differences in brain morphology. Once there is finally some very good scientific DNA tests done, then can all the other nurture effects be quantified.

As for the slavery thing. The last nation to outlaw it was Saudi Arabia in the 1960's. It still goes on in Africa, the mid East and Southern Asia---but just as long as Whites aren't enslaving Blacks---it is tolerated and not shown on the evening news.

Even if we are to assume statistics is a pure enough study to determine definite inherited racial traits, what is the point in making such a discovery? Just so we can tell a Black man, "Hey, no matter what you do, no matter how you were raised, you're always going to be not QUITE as good as me intellectually."? I once again stress that I see no reason to even conduct such studies. Maybe I'm missing the point, but what is your personal reasoning that such research is important, other than to establish a racial superiority complex? I don't see how it will aid in human progression, human unity, human love, or human understanding. It will only divide us.

Also just out of curiosity, I'm no expert on the Asian economies, but what about the Chinese psyche itself allowed China and Singapore to progress faster, as opposed to other social or international factors?

 

[numan]

Yes I live next to a small swamp, but as a survivalist, I live in a subdivision with an armed guard, alarm system and barking dog and some guns locked-up as backup---as you could imagine.

So -- you live in a walled, gated fortress, armed to the teeth, with armed guards ceaselessly prowling the perimeter, attack dogs at the ready -- all this you need to "survive"?

What, pray tell, is the difference between this and living in a prison?

I could hardly think of a more damning indictment of the utter failure of America -- both as a government and as a society -- than the feudal fortress "war of all against all" that you imagine to be a reasonable way to live.

I have long maintained that the America of the Constitution and the chaotic society initiated by the Insurrectionary Terrorists of 1776 was an unmitigated disaster for the development of America -- but your description of armed, frightened fortresses struggling to "survive" far surpasses even the most vitriolic criticisms of the USA that I have ever imagined.

.

 

[Survivalist]

Do you not also base your opinions on the same thing? We all are influenced by such things, and form our views through hear-say, books, education, experiences, whatever. I'm no different from you, and like you said I cannot assume you know what you're talking about and you can't assume I don't know what I'm talking about, or vice versa. We're just different.

I'm aware of Obama and Oprah being the exceptions to the rule, and in that lies the problem. I still think biologically, psychologically, black people, Asians, whoever are capable of anything. However, we do not all necessarily receive the same opportunities, and that is where the differences often lie.

I think it's completely untrue that nobody lives a rural, underdeveloped lifestyle by choice; that is a huge generalization. I have no doubt that there are many tribes where if we started giving them Ipads and cars they would tell us to get the hell out and leave them be. Some people would argue that these tribes simply haven't been exposed to the luxuries of life, and thus don't know any better than their primitive ways. But how about the homeless people on the streets of San Francisco, where I now live? They know what they could have if they applied themselves, but they choose that nomadic, homeless lifestyle. These people aren't so incapable of intelligent thought that they don't know what they're missing out on.

Once again, as I said before IQ is not the golden determination of intelligence, and I refuse to use those tests as a way to judge between different races. Those tests have all sorts of strange questions, ones that people in the ghetto or who live certain lifestyles around the world might not understand or have the same answers that a person in a developed society would have. A villager may know how to skin a rabbit, while I do not. I may know how to use a library database, while they do not. That doesn't reflect intelligence.

I do not believe it was right to spit on the soldiers who returned, though I would appreciate if you didn't single out the Bay Area and San Francisco as a bunch of disrespectful piles of garbage. Nor should you ever, ever include me in a group that would spit on or disrespect a single human being on this Earth. Frankly, you don't know me, as I don't know you. This is where I've grown up, and though there are some extreme views we are often very respectful and intelligent. I don't care if you disagree with liberal viewpoints, that's perfectly fine, as I disagree with some too, but you have to show them respect, as they have to show you respect. Calling them "liberhoids" or "libbies" and all that junk is completely unproductive. (Not saying you do this, but many people posting do.)

That being said, let's not pretend there were not great atrocities committed by our troops. Let's also never forget the crimes committed by the North Vietnamese, Viet Cong, and Khmer Rouge. I'm aware of the story of boat people, as I grew up with their children. They came to America because America OFFERED to take them in in order to gain sympathy for the U.S. government's operations in Vietnam. America had specific programs aimed at bringing over Vietnamese refugees, spreading them all throughout the country.

How different are they really though? Ho Chi Minh's followers? They felt they could solve problems with violence, as do we. Are we to judge right and wrong in Vietnam by who committed MORE atrocities? Hypothetically, if our troops committed 20% of civilian deaths (a random number) and the Viet Cong committed 80%, are we really on the moral high ground? I think the Vietnamese villagers wouldn't want either one of us there and just want to be left alone.

We're all the same. We are all victims of this ideology that this world will be a better place if we just kill the right people. Personally, I actually liked Ho Chi Minh, as a leader anyways, not necessarily his actions or the nefarious killings of his followers and such. The man just wanted independence in Vietnam, and a unified Vietnam. I agree with the ends, not so much the means. All in all, the Diem regime in South Vietnam supported by the U.S. government was no better though. They did things just as bad as the North Vietnamese.

And Trayvon Martin is a whole other story, but he was just a young kid caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm not jumping on that bandwagon of support for him, but I do feel that Zimmerman was guilty of SOME crime. I just do not feel rioting and breaking windows is the right way of expressing my feelings. However, some people in this world know no other way of making their voices heard, and resort to things like that to get attention. Terrorists are the same way. We must not condone the rioters in Oakland and elsewhere, but try to understand them, just as we must try to understand all crime in this world and the underlying factors.

Obviously I have been around much longer than you, and have obviously read and studied a much more diverse body of information than you have. I have a much better understanding how the system works in the liberal controlled world. The major media is virtually all controlled by leftist liberals. They edit what is seen on the news, what is printed not only in the press, but what is placed in all the textbooks that are placed in most puplic schools, such as they are in CA. The liberal progressives will crow about how diverse they are, but conservative and Christian viewpoints or leadship are not hardly tolerated.

I try to hold all people of all groups to the same standards, even if I know some won't attain it. I don't give a free pass to Conservative Christian leader just because I like where he is coming from. As you should, by your admission of thinking someone like Ho Chi Mihn is "likable." If neo-communism is your religion, it requires much faith, like all the other religions. I would bet the limited information you have on Uncle Ho is from the far-Left. Really, if you are so hot about not being biased, you should judge Richard Nixon to the same moral standard as Uncle Ho. You judge a person's righteousness on his actioins and behavior. Giving communists a free pass is just what the liberal intelligentsia has been doing for 90 years. Anyway, because President Nixon didn't do any of the following makes him less savage, and a better person:

The terror had its real beginning when Red dictator Ho Chi Minh consolidated his power in the North. More than a year before his 1954 victory over the French, he launched a savage campaign against his own people. In virtually every North Vietnamese village, strong-arm squads assembled the populace to witness the “confessions” of landowners. As time went on, businessmen, intellectuals, school teachers, civic leaders — all who represented a potential source of future opposition — were also rounded up and forced to “confess” to “errors of thought.” There followed public “trials,” conviction and, in many cases, execution. People were shot, beheaded, beaten to death; some were tied up, thrown into open graves and covered with stones until they were crushed to death, Ho has renewed his terror in North Vietnam periodically. Between 50,000 and 100,000 are believed to have died in these blood-baths — in a coldly calculated effort to discipline the party and the masses. To be sure, few who escape Ho’s terror now seem likely to tempt his wrath. During the 1950s, however, he had to quell some sizeable uprisings in North Vietnam — most notably one that occurred in early November 1956, in the An province, which included Ho’s birthplace village of Nam Dan. So heavily had he taxed the region that the inhabitants finally banded together and refused to meet his price. Ho sent troops to collect, and then sent in an army division, shooting. About 6,000 unarmed villagers were killed. The survivors scattered, some escaping to the South. The slaughter went largely unnoticed by a world then preoccupied with the Soviet Union’s rape of Hungary
The Blood-Red Hands of Ho Chi Minh

North Vietnam’s treatment of American airmen shot down and captured over North Vietnam was a subject of controversy and concern throughout the Vietnam War. From the very beginning of the war, North Vietnam’s stated position was that American prisoners captured in North Vietnam were “war criminals” who had committed crimes against the North Vietnamese people in the course of an illegal war of aggression and that therefore the American prisoners were not entitled to the privileges and rights granted to prisoners of war (POW) under the terms of the Geneva Convention. The North Vietnamese refused to provide the International Red Cross with the names of Americans who were being held prisoner in North Vietnam and did not allow regular inspection visits by the International Red Cross to ensure that the prisoners were being treated properly in accordance with the terms of the 1947 Geneva Convention on POWs.

e-Dossier No. 30 - Treatment of American POWs in North Vietnam | Wilson Center

I won't even cover the volumes of atrocities Mr. Stalin did, but our leftist media and leaders liked him so much better than Hitler, that almost all the savagery he ordered has been swept up under the rug.

Like Lenin, do you say, "The ends justify the means?"

 

[Survivalist]

Yes I live next to a small swamp, but as a survivalist, I live in a subdivision with an armed guard, alarm system and barking dog and some guns locked-up as backup---as you could imagine.

So -- you live in a walled, gated fortress, armed to the teeth, with armed guards ceaselessly prowling the perimeter, attack dogs at the ready -- all this you need to "survive"?

What, pray tell, is the difference between this and living in a prison?

I could hardly think of a more damning indictment of the utter failure of America -- both as a government and as a society -- than the feudal fortress "war of all against all" that you imagine to be a reasonable way to live.

I have long maintained that the America of the Constitution and the chaotic society initiated by the Insurrectionary Terrorists of 1776 was an unmitigated disaster for the development of America -- but your description of armed, frightened fortresses struggling to "survive" far surpasses even the most vitriolic criticisms of the USA that I have ever imagined.

.

Just trying to point out that as a survivalist, I have to defend "my cred."

Actually, this neighborhood is only an armed fortress mainly because I figure 8 out of 10 homes here have at least one gun in them. The fence is wooden, and all the entrances are left open during the day. At night, a guard checks the license plates and keeps out (hopefully) any undesirables.

At least in our area, we have walking trails and families can safety walk with their babies with little fear---at all---even after dark. We have a pretty easygoing life here actually.

However, in the hood 20 kicks away, years of broken socialistic policies have allowed the players there to set up open air narcotics dealerships. Home invasions, carjackings and the various thefts, rapes, assaults are just part of daily life there. People do live in real fear over there, and don't walk with their kids after dark.

Just like in the bad areas of London and Birmigham in the UK, the criminals know the government, laws and police are so weak and laughable that they can run amok with little fear of being caught.

 

[Auteur]

I'm getting the picture here Mr S, and it is not a pretty one. There you sit in your armed camp, guns protecting you from the inferior coloured folks, the commies and liberals, who would do you harm if given half a chance. Meanwhile, those at the apex of the capitalist food chain reap ever more benefit, for ever fewer citizens, and no doubt chuckle as they feed various rigth wing think tanks, media outlets, and other instutitions in order to keep alive the assorted racist, classist, and mystical nonsense that that is useful for them, but disaster for the average citizen.

Without the application of critical thinking, and an understanding of the scientific method, and a general sense of the sweep of history and the changes it has brought, one is open to all manner of manipulation. Does God favor America? Possible to believe for someone with little education, and less interest in exploring the world of ideas. Them darkies won't never learn? Also possible to believe, for those who distain intellectual pursuits.

I feel sorry for those in America that are stumbling into the 21st century, into a world they don't really know. We are seeing historic change today- Asia is regaining its historical significance, and the US is retreating to a relative position of about 100 years ago, when it was one of several significant industrial powers, rather than the single power. This is going to be hard to take for many who fear and misunderstand such change.