Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: Forumsdwarf on June 25, 2010, 09:17:35 am

Theo van Gogh died for women's rights and artistic freedom.

You are not really familiar with his work, I guess.
He died because he was stabbed by a psycho, and made (often inferior) art meant to shock people (in which he succeeded). He was a hedonist and inherently self-destructive, not a Noble Warrior for the Freedom of Artists.

He can't be both?  Was Mozart a hack because he couldn't manage his money?  Ridiculous.

Saddam used american weapons given to him to fight Iran, against the Kurds and other people.

He used SOVIET weapons.  Did you even read my reply before repeating your misinformed propaganda?
America's contribution to Iraq's arsenal was miniscule.
But the Russian situation does happen to be an interesting case study in the Strong Horse Theory: Russia's penchant for responding to terrorism with massively disproportionate force seems to be paying off.  Nobody much talks about how the Soviets helped Iraq and kept the Middle East fighting, it's always what America did.  That says something about Russian counter-terrorism strategy.

Saddam wasn't ousted until he nationalised the oil, and then tried to switch from dollars to euros.

Preposterous.  Saddam was ousted after 9/11 because he wouldn't allow weapons inspectors in and kept shooting at our planes enforcing the Kurds' no-fly zone.
I'm not saying the switch to euros and subsequent orgy of corruption didn't have its role to play in the invasion, but it was an enabler, not a motive.  The Oil-for-Food Scandal was a diplomatic boon at a critical time when we needed to convince allies to join a military coalition outside the U.N.  The extravagance of Kojo and friends made the illegitimacy of the U.N. self-evident.

Quote

Theo van Gogh wasn't killed either for Iraqi arms sales or Saudi oil sales.  He was killed for creating a film advocating women's rights for Muslims.  You can't seriously be blaming American foreign policy for his murder?

Oh, I can.

And what's wrong with that is what's wrong with mainstream Muslims: they use grievances real or imagined against American foreign policy to excuse terrorist attacks, intolerance, violence, and murder.  Those excuses provide the extremists with moral and social legitimacy.
But those grievances are not the real problem; they're excuses.  "If only the Americans hadn't invaded Iraq Theo van Gogh would still be alive?"
Garbage.
It's the attitude of people who would pull out their list of grievances whenever there's a terrorist attack which is the real problem.

"Osama's propaganda"... There's a topic in this forum right now about conspiracy theories. Anything that doesn't fit your worldview is "propaganda from the enemy".

Well if it comes out of Osama bin Laden's mouth it's going to have a slant, isn't it?

Ayaan is a loudmouth, frustrated and damaged by her upbringing (which wouldn't have been better if she hadn't been born a muslim), and unable to constructively look at the bigger picture. I'm glad she's gone, and she probably won't come back since by now she makes most dutch puke as much as your Palin does to USians.

Your opinions of Ms. Hirsi-Ali thus expressed help me to calibrate what you've said about Mr. Wilders.

Your and Wilders' generalisation of 1.5 billion people is what creates evil in this world.

You don't even understand what that generalization is.  I don't deny that there is one, and perhaps that in itself is wrong, but you certainly don't understand it.  If you did you wouldn't have said this:

Were I the same as you, I'd call all USians evil

I tried to keep kind of civil

You were much more successful with your previous message.

Quote from: Forumsdwarf on June 22, 2010, 11:06:41 pm

... that's the point I'm trying to make: grievances real and perceived from centuries ago don't justify murder or terrorism ... you blame the Netherlands for Nazi atrocities.

Our efficient bureaucracy, infrastructure and adequate population records significantly helped the Germans ...

You were conquered by Nazis.  Were they just going to ignore all your infrastructure?
The Russians practiced a "scorched Earth" policy, yes, but they had time to burn and destroy everything in the path of the advancing Germans because of the terrain.
The idea that the Dutch were willing Nazi collaborators is malicious propaganda on par with Stephen Fry blaming the Poles for Auschwitz.
Every conquered people will have collaborators forced at gunpoint to collaborate under the guise of a "legitimate government".  Vichy France wasn't France; neither was the "government" of the Netherlands representative of anything but Nazi conquest.
Using it as a justification for Islamic terrorism is even more blind to history because most Muslims who fought in World War II took the side of the Nazis.  Why would Islamic terrorism be visited upon the Dutch for the crime of being on the same side?

You just asked for terrible things the dutch had done to the world: There they are.

Wrong.  I asked for which crimes justified the murder of Theo van Gogh.  You genuinely surprised me by giving an answer filled with reasons for why poor Theo should die.
Perhaps you misunderstood the question, so I'll ask it again more plainly:
What terrible past crimes did the Netherlands commit which justify the murder of Theo van Gogh?

The excuses for violence, intolerance, and terrorism need to stop.

Quote

Agreed. And as Wilders preaches intolerance, he needs to stop as well. I'm glad you agree.

Almost.  It's a question of the lesser of evils.  I'm sure not long after Wilders is elected and completes some painful but much-needed reforms he will become the greater evil and need to go.

What brings some muslims to commit terrorist acts are current and recent affairs ...

Terrorist attacks have been ongoing for decades -- 9/11 just raised awareness.
If what you say is true, that current and recent affairs motivate terrorism, then there must also be another motivation, because without a time machine current and recent affairs cannot have motivated all those attacks in the past.
To take the War on Terror as just one example, our response to 9/11 cannot have been the provocation for 9/11.  If the War on Terror is motivating terrorism there is no reason to think that without the war the motives that caused 9/11 wouldn't have gone right on motivating terrorism anyway.

... as there are over 1.5 BILLION muslims in the world who are NOT terrorists, I hardly think the Islam itself is to blame.

Offering excuses to terrorists gives them moral cover for their attacks.  When mainstream Muslims take such actions as rioting in the streets demanding the death of editorial cartoonists or insist they are the real victims of terrorist attacks because the non-Muslim world is always against them they are abetting terrorism by making it socially acceptable.

Y'all, I have one thing to say.  I want to chloroform that clown, drag him into an unmarked van, shave off that fucking platinum pompadour, and laser his scalp until he can never again unleash such horror upon the world.

Good grief yes!  He looks like a cross between a televangelist and Slobodan Milosevic.

Just a couple of hours 'til the next comic ... don't kill the server hitting the "Refresh" button ...

(Heh, since feeds came out that's not a problem anymore, is it?  Am I showing my age?)

The difference between forumdwarf and me is that I mention "hardcore conservative Christian".
I don't try to make it look as if all Christian are violent, or supporting violence.

I believe my criticism of "mainstream" Muslims wasn't that they were violent but that instead of showing sympathy and respect for the dead they portray themselves as the "real victims".
I'll go ahead and add that in many cases I've seen in the media and even here on this forum the religious violence is rationalized and justified by arguments about American imperialism.  I have a few questions:

How does America going to war after 9/11 retroactively justify 9/11?
Salman Rushdie is British, born in India.  So his murder would be justified because of the British Empire?  Or maybe the Indo-Pakistani conflict?
How about Theo van Gogh?  What terrible historic crimes of imperialism did the Netherlands commit to justify open season on its citizens?
Ayaan Hirsi-Ali?  Somalia?  Are you kidding me?
Even if one accepts the absurd argument that American foreign policy justifies Islamic terror how does that justify all the non-American authors, artists, dissidents, and apostates murdered or marked for death?

Maybe Muslims are getting a bad rep because of the "Sharpton Effect", a lazy news media going for the most sensational quotes, but then right here on this forum there are justifications for the violence and killing which I've already demonstrated are ridiculous.  Theo van Gogh didn't die because of American foreign policy.  He died for advocating women's rights.

Of which kind was the one who murdered Theo van Gogh, and how would one tell the difference before the knife goes in?

Quote

If you suspect any young Muslim to want to stab you, you may want to see a doctor, because you may have a severe case of paranoia.

Unless you're Theo van Gogh.  Or Salman Rushdie.  Or Ayaan Hirsi-Ali.  Or you drew a cartoon of Muhammad.

Kurt Westergaard was "paranoid" enough to build a reinforced bunker inside his home after certain cartoons of a certain prophet gained a certain amount of notoriety.  Of course not every Muslim who comes after you with an axe is out to get you -- that's just the paranoia talking.

Absolutely. I don't give a damn if people lie to me or whatever, with absolute power their lies don't matter. I daresay, they don't matter. If I could have anything I wanted, I don't think it'd be possible to be unhappy. I don't think it'd be 'horrible', rather, I think it'd be 'heaven'.

Absolute power, absolute control. Everything would be within your grasp.

Heh, for some weird reason your strategy -- "ignore the critics, I have absolute power so who cares?" -- makes me think of Michael Jackson hanging out at Neverland Ranch and never mind how weird it may seem.
The equal opposite of that would be Barbara Streisand suing everyone in sight.

I think Jackson had the better strategy, or at least wasted a lot less time being stressed out.

Heh, there's the rub, isn't it?  Even with absolute power time is still a scarce resource, the one thing you're guaranteed to waste worrying what people are saying about you.

Your strategy is definitely the wisest ... assuming your absolute power were never in danger of usurpation, of course.  I'm not sure Kim Jong-Il could afford it.

While we're speculating about who may be masquerading as whom, thanks to the two Jacks there is one more personality than people to account for them.  What if the "Zimmy" body is an empty shell and "Spider Jack" is really Zimmy?

Zimmy isn't acting like Zimmy.  She's being all quiet and passive.  Plus Jack connected to her in some fashion when she spaced everyone out, so maybe "Spider Jack" is the result of some sort of incompatibility -- or horrific psychic trauma -- as a consequence of that connection that really has Zimmy messed up.

It's far-fetched, I know ... any takers?

Quote from: Forumsdwarf on June 18, 2010, 05:37:23 am

That level of self-centeredness approaches the sociopathic.

Sorry, I can't help myself, but you're displaying exactly what you're arguing against.

I'm speaking for the real victims, not claiming to be one.