DebateGate

If the jury is asked to decide whether a film is obscene, and cannot see the entire film, then the trial is bogus.

If I had a movie with one scene in it where a child was raped, would it be necessary to see the rest of the movie to determine if the film was obscene? 

If the movie contains material sufficient to - in and of itself - be considered obscene, then the rest of the film couldbe about Saint Bernadette and it would still be obscene.

<<I'm not sure about oblivion, but it is not a step up by any means.  Israel doesn't need a NATO ally.  The de facto military arm of NATO is already her biggest ally.  >>

That may be starting to change.  In any event, I have always wondered, when the shit hits the fan, just how far that "biggest ally" is willing to go for its little sidekick.  This is, after all, an "alliance" never formalized in a mutual defence treaty, in which all of the benefits of the "alliance" seem to flow in one direction only.

Yeah, but there is way too much history there.  And if you want to be completely cynical, keeping Israel over there to occupy the ragheads helps keep them from getting any funny ideas about forming an actual working Pan-Arab alliance which just might become another major power - even a superpower - and would introduce a whole new problem in that oil-rich region.  OPEC is quite enough to deal with.  Israel keeps them all jockeying for power while trying to avoid getting on Big Brother's hit list.  Eliminate Israel and they could have enough free time on their hands to start thinking about mergers.  It could be like a wall-street orgy with five breaks a day for prayer. 

I don't see the US backing off from supporting Israel anytime soon.  And if we did, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Israel courting Russia and China (and them falling in line for the same destabilization reasons).  World politics is a funny pup.

What a bunch of undisguised garbage.  Murder is murder and most of the world can understand it as such. 

Fortunately, this is not murder.  It is "selective execution" of "enemies of the people." 

Man, you shoulda seen that post . . .

Anyone who can't see this as a distinct lurch toward oblivion by the Israelis is definitely looking at this with blinders on.

I'm not sure about oblivion, but it is not a step up by any means.  Israel doesn't need a NATO ally.  The de facto military arm of NATO is already her biggest ally. 

Anti-Israeli Bravo Sierra aside, I have to agree with the general gist of XO's initial analysis.


Israel has every right to establish whatever relationship with any nation it chooses.  But cultivating better relations with Greece - if it has anything at all to do with their relationship with Turkey -  is a ridiculous move by Israel. 

First, by simple comparison, Turkey has, indeed, all of those Muslim ties, along with power and prestige in the Middle East that Greece lacks entirely.  In regional terms, Greece as a strategic partner has nothing to offer.  That relationship would be nothing compared to the loss of Turkish partnership. 

Second, Greece is rocked by internal strife and economic catastrophe right now.  It's like one passenger on the Titanic clinging to another. 

Third, Greece is STILL an enemy in all but name to Turkey.  The effect of improved relations with Greece - especially if flaunted as an antidote to the loss of Turkish support - would drive a last nail into the coffin of Turkish-Israeli relations.  It might well also drive the Turks to openly support Iran and other regimes currently hostile to the west.  Turkey is a moderate nation, but the Turks are a proud people and eventually they are going to see a lot more sense in sticking with their Muslim brothers than in groveling at the feet of the US and Israel.  They have already resisted the overtures of the US concerning their fight with the Kurds and involvement in the ongoing conflicts, in spite of our NATO relations.  I think we squander our own goodwill with Turkey at great peril.  Israel needs them even more. Turkey seems like no threat right now, but Iran seemed pretty secure in 1976. 


Finally, somewhere, the Maccabees are turning over in their graves.

<<Iraq demonstrably supported terrorism and clearly met the description in his initial speech. >>

There were many nations, the U.S. and Israel included, that "supported terrorism" at the time.  Iraq was a minor player in the "supporting terrorism" game and there was no indication at that time that Bush was proposing to invade Iraq.   

Do you really intend to continue your silly argument that "Bush never mentioned Iraq" means Bush did not intend to attack Iraq?  That's pretty lame, MT, because Bush mentioned that there were, IIRC OVER 60 nations worldwide that supported terrorism.  He did NOT name 60.  He named probably about two or three.  Iraq had already been identified as a threat nation in need of regime change by the CLINTON administration.  We had been involved in a military action to suppress Iraq only ten years earlier.  Was it really a shock to see that Iraq was on that list of nations?  Please.  You have decisively lost this argument and you are grasping at straws.

My tactic is very transparent.  Against all the bullshit arguments for invading Iran today, I juxtapose the same bullshit arguments for invading Iraq in 2003 to show that the war-mongering bullshit of the fascists, militarists and Zio-Nazis never changes.  It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.  It was lies then and it's lies now.  It was ruinously expensive then and it will be even more ruinously expensive now.  It accomplished nothing then and it will accomplish nothing now.  (Apart from the ownership of the oil wells changing hands out of the public eye.)  I hope that's clear enough for you.

Yes, it is.  This is the part that is clear:   "My tactic is very transparent." "It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now."

<<And how's that Jihad working out?  Where is this great hero.  Well by gosh, he's hiding out of sight. >>

And he calls himself a guerrilla leader!!!  Just curious, plane, but WTF did you expect?  A Playboy Mansion where he holds court and receives guests and diplomatic representatives, look me up, the number's in the book?

No.  How about a leader's mansion? You know like Number 10 Downing Street or the White House.  If he is a great hero and a great leader and wonderfully successful at his mission why is he afraid to walk out in the open?  President Obama does.  President Bush does.  Presidents Clinton, Carter and Bush the elder do.  It can't be money.  Bin Laden is a rich man.  But he has no mansion, no seat of power, no office, no residence, no forwarding address.  He is hiding.  We're not hiding - he is.  We have a government.  He has a dwindling organization of loose cannons.  We have an entire city of government buildings.  He has a hideout.  We have an infrastructure.  He has an apartment somewhere where he is trying to invent a shoebomb that works.  We have an army.  He has a lot of dead friends and untrained fanatics.  We brought down two governments.  He brought down two buildings. This is your idea of a guy who's kicking our ass.  I brushed some dandruff off my shoulder this morning.  It was a far bigger hit on me than anything bin Laden has done or will do.  I watched fireworks this evening to celebrate 234 years of freedom.  He is hiding in a hole somewhere watching the skies for predator drones.  I sleep in the same bed every night, and never worry that some big, bad Muslim boogieman can get me.  He moves from place to place and pisses himself everytime he sees a bird's shadow on the ground.   Great hero my backside.

Really?  How about where the drone controllers operate their killer drones from?  I understand it's underneath a shopping mall in Las Vegas.  You got an address for that mall?  Can ya find it on Google Earth?  Think they're still there now when even a schmuck like me knows that much?

Well, see they are actually involved in the war.  Bin Laden isn't.  He's the "leader" hiding out of harm's way.  Obama doesn't control the drones, because he is a political leader - not a military one.  Now, General Petraeus, see, he has a HEADQUARTERS.   He shows up in public places.  Bin Laden, the great hero, can't do this because we would kill him.  He knows where OUR leaders are, but he can't kill them.  If we knew where he was, he would be dead in minutes.    He's had nine years to kill Bush, but he can't do it.  He isn't even a little threat.  So, we have driven him out of his stronghold into a hiding place, we have toppled the regime that supported him.   He has drawn us out of our country to go to HIS country to punish him.  Every time his piss ant soldiers show themselves and come against us, we kill them.  Lots of them.. Far more of them than they kill of us.  But you keep talking all you want to about how he is kicking our ass and the Taliban runs Afghanistan.  You keep talking, because the silence would otherwise have to be filled with a reality you love to deny but that keeps laughing at you.

<<How is that "destroying America" thing working out for the mighty Jihad. >>

Maybe you know some other group of a few hundred men that have cost the U.S. what they forced it to spend.  Please, tell us, who could they be?  Your whole fucking nation teeters on the brink of insolvency and these guys did it all on a budget that probably is less than any mid-sized American city's.  You're on the edge of an abyss and I can't think of any group that had more to do with your predicament than al Qaeda and the ruinous wars they tricked you into starting.

Oh, you mean we're having money problems and it had nothing to do with the mortgage meltdown, the horrors of deregulation and the inherent evils of our capitalist system?  Gosh, Michael, you should try to save some of that ammo for another thread.  You're getting your causes and effects all higgeldy-piggeldy.   So OK, you're right.  I was unaware of it while I was spending the money I make from my military retirement and my current decade-old job or my wife's excellent sales bonuses and regular salary, but apparently the nation has done been destroyed right out from under me!  I guess that means I can finally stop paying the damn IRS.  Wonder what the President and Congress are doing now that our government has been toppled?  Gosh darn them pesky Talibanners. 

Yeah, like I said, how's that Jihad going?

<<They could, of course, be more effective than say, putting a poorly constructed malfunctioning bomb in Times Square and then claiming that the almighty Allah had struck a blow for them in the great Jihad (I suppose some of the SUV was damaged, and maybe it was American made or something.  Praise Allah!) >>

Well, first I'd like to see some kind of proof that this guy really was al Qaeda or similar.  Like the Amsterdam-Detroit bomber, there's enough going wrong with these "monstrous attempts" that really shouldn't be going wrong that, especially in the case of the airline "bomber," you have to wonder if these aren't just U.S. government theatricals staged to persuade wavering taxpayers that all the money spent on "Homeland Security" has to be spent.  But if these guys are genuine, it just proves that it's more luck than skill that keeps the jihad from scoring.  That wouldn't reassure too many sane and normal people, or it shouldn't.  It means that the vulnerability remains despite all the torture, invasions, massacres and violence you have initiated.  As you say, the game ain't over till it's over.

Hmm, so you're saying, in response to my claim that Al Quaeda hasn't been successful except for a few failed attempts that they weren't really EVEN Al Quaeda attempts.  And in fact, another good point to prove that Al Quaeda has TOO been successful, dammit, is that they are SO successful at attacking our country that our own government has to MANUFACTURE terror attacks to make it look like Al Quaeda is, umm, being successful in attacking, umm, us because they are, uhh, so . . . successful . . . wait.  Wait a minute, that wouldn't make any sense.  You wouldn't MANUFACTURE terror attacks if Al Quaeda was ALREADY successful in attacking us since 9-11.

Look, I'm sorry, but your logic is getting a little confusing.  Now, I'm saying Al Quaeda's mighty Jihad isn't working, cuz they aren't getting any attacks in on us.  You give me three options.  Either the only attacks that DID seem to work at least in theory are actually US manufactured attacks (which would mean Al Quaeda has had ZERO successful attacks on America) or they were failed attempts by terrorists who were NOT Al Quaeda (which would mean Al Quaeda has had ZERO successful attacks on America) or it was just good luck on our part, not skill (which would mean Al Quaeda has had ZERO successful attacks . . . wait, is this Deja Vu?).  Of course, maybe you meant to assign that lack of skill to the brilliant plotters of these attacks which is justified.   But see, I just can't see how any of your claims rebut my point that Jihad ain't working so well for the mighty hidden warriors of Allah.

<<I never said terrorism was an ideology.  You political whining doesn't change the facts.  As to the US supporting regimes that have used terrorist tactics, that's probably true.  Too bad.>>

Kinda undercuts your justification for attacking Iraq, though, doesn't it?

Nope.  You smack my wife, I shoot you.  You smack somebody else's wife, meh.


 

<<  Communism has a history of deadly suppression of the people of the countries where it has been established.  >>

Bullshit.  Communism does not suppress "the people," they suppress the enemies of the people.

Yeah, just like Hitler did.  He killed the enemies of the people - Jews, Gays, Catholics, those type.  Damn shame about those enemies of the people, though.  They keep popping up in commie countries and going and having to get themselves killed, like in China in Tiananmen Square.  Or those damn pesky enemies of the people like Lech Walesa.  He sure ain't a "people."  Damn enemy didn't even have the courtesy to get himself killed, dammit!  Went and got a whole lotz of them enemies of the people and got the workers of Poland to unite!  Karl Marx would have just been APPALLED at somebody uniting the workers against an oppressive regime.  And then ya know what them enemies of the people went and done?  Michael, ya wouldn't belief the NERVE Of them people - I mean ENEMIES of the people.  They went and OVERTHREW the Soviet Union.  Then the whole damn Iron Curtain went and rusted straight through, and the walls came a-tumblin' down around the Brandenburg Gate and THOUSANDS of them enemies of the people started shouting and singing and acting like they was free, instead of stuck on the wrong end of a wall or something.  And all that just a few decades after Saint Joey the Stalinite had already killed MILLIONS of them enemies!  That damn enemy of the people Nikita Kruschev even had the nerve to apologize for that wonderous act of noble mass murder.  He shoulda been hung for it!  Stupid enemy!

But hey THANK GODLESS for Pol Pot.  He sure knew how to take care of those enemies, didn't he?  And Chairman Mao?  Yeah, a real hero of the people there. 

Communists are mass-murderers by ideology.  Like all tyrants they are scared to death (and justifiably, as the fall of the Soviets and their satellites has proved, and the uprisings of the Chinese population continue to demonstrate) of the ACTUAL people - the real bread-and-butter workers and ordinary folks who got initially fooled by promises of "land, bread and peace" none of which came true.  The useful idiots who have the nerve to get wise.  Your pathetic, transparent, bigotted crap about those millions killed  by communist regimes being "enemies of the people" have the same filthy stench as the claims by slaveholders that blacks were not people, but property.  It is EXACTLY the same rationale as Hitler used for killing millions of people.  It was the same motivation that led European settlers to give smallpox-infected blankets to indigenous people.  You talk about American soldiers being murderers.  They are rank amateurs in the face of ANY Communist regime.  Fortunately, America is STILL a strong 234 year old nation, while the mighty Soviet Union is a fading memory that lasted far less than a century, Communist China is quietly abandoning communist practice for Capitalist gains and the few remaining countries who actually take communism seriously have to survive by crushing the will of the people (like in Venezuela) or starving the population (like In North Korea) and then still only amount to a fart in a whirlwind in the real world. 

Enemies of the people, my eye.  The enemies of the people in communist countries are all party members.

<<You still support it.  You support your ideology by suggesting that anybody who fights against communism is a fair target. >>

God-damn right I do.  Either you're for the Revolution or you're against the people.

The "revolution" is not, and never has been the people.  It is only a transfer of wealth and power from one elite set of people to another.  The only difference is that the first group generally earned the power and wealth and knew how to maintain it.  No Communist system ever made life better for its population, created any real wealth (except when it resorted to capitalism) or succeeded in any real way. 

<< Well, I feel the same way about freedom (you know, the opposite of communism). >>

First of all what you support has nothing to do with freedom. 

I support the free election of leaders in a multiple-party system.  That's freedom.  You support sham elections in a one-party system.  That's oppression.  I support the right to earn your keep, make your way and better yourself and your family.  That's freedom.   You support the subjugation of the individual to the state.  That's oppression.  I support the right to worship God, protect my family and do what I choose to do.  That's freedom.  You support the abolishment of religious freedom, the dismantling of the family unit and giving the state the right to dictate my choices.  That's oppression.  You wouldn't know how to define freedom.  You think forced labor, mass-murder and government control is freedom.  What I support has EVERYTHING to do with freedom.  What you support has only to do with oppression.

If Mubarak or the Kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia are "Freedom," then I am V. I. Lenin.   The U.S.A. stands for fascism abroad, torture, arbitrary arrests and assassinations, even of its own citizens.

If Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao are better than Mubarak or any of the governments you complain about than I am V. I. Lenin's gay, atheist lover.  And you must have made a typo.  You said U.S.A. when I'm sure you meant USSR. 

To confuse the U.S.A. with Freedom is absurd. 

To confuse Communism with good is far worse.

Regardless, the simple fact is that what I support is good and what you support is evil. 

Leaving aside the continued demonstration of your inability to distinguish fact from opinion, your opinion in this case is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

So you can't equate your support of "Freedom" (as you so absurdly call it) with my support of Communism.

I wouldn't equate it.  My support of freedom (as I so correctly call it) is far superior to your support of communism.

<<  So I have no problem using the tactics of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung against communists, Islamists and fascists (all of who are from the same mold).>>

More of the same wrong-headed crap.  What you stand for is dead wrong, but because YOU stand for it, you can defend it with the tactics that you consider evil. 

And this differs how from YOUR assertion that those tactics are OK when YOUR side uses them?  You obviously consider these tactics as acceptable, so the only reason they would be wrong is if used by those YOU don't support.  Your position has no more merit logically, morally or ethically than mine.  I would have to say, to use your muddle-headed term, that you're just spouting off wrong-headed crap.

Pooch, it wouldn't matter HOW you supported your dead-end ideology, you could use the tactics of Joe Stalin AND Mother Teresa or both, and you'd still be in the wrong.  Why?  Because your cause sucks.  Because despite all the fine window dressing you hang around it, it still stands for militarism, fascism and the oppression and exploitation of the poor and helpless by the rich and powerful.

You just described communism in ever iteration it has ever existed.

My point is that Bush's rant against "anyone" who supported "terrorism" was in such general terms that no one would take it as a call to invade Iraq.  That came much later, and when it did, specific reasons were invented for it, not the general "they support terrorism" which would never have justified an invasion and a war in the eyes of the American people.  They needed to see much more specific threats than that.

That is your opinion.  It is not fact.  What Bush said about this being a long, multi-objective, multi-national war is fact.  You used the argument that Bush never said anything about length, difficulty, etc. BEFORE the war until I proved that was not the case.  Then you switched to "No, but THAT doesn't count because, umm, it wasn't ABOUT Iraq, only the other numerous nations and lengthy battles and potential heavy casualties he mentioned."   But I didn't fight you with opinions.  I fought you with facts.   But I did offer some opinions.  That's when your searing logical abilities stepped up to the plate (The sarcasm alert was implicit there, right?):

<<So you set yourself up as some educated, intelligent genius and try to denigrate my own knowledge base. >>

Where'd I try to denigrate your knowledge base? . . .

Excuse me, but if this rant is related in any way to my allegedly extolling my own knowledge at the expense of yours, I'd at least like to know what particular post of mine got you started in on this.

<<Ooops!  I guess "greeted as liberators" has kind of worn out its welcome.  Now there's another hare-brained scheme to replace it - - you'll "drive the hardliners and the opposition together."  And you know this of course by your long and patient study of Iran, its government, people and customs.>>

<<Both segments of that opinion [That there will be no day of reckoning for the guilty just proves to me that there is no God] will change.>>

That opinion will never change.   As an American, you just better hope that there is no God.

I am an American, and an American soldier at that.  I don't hope their isn't a God, I know there is one - and that fact gives me comfort, not fear. 

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj93gDjOjOs

George Bush Post 9/11 speech pt 2

OK, Michael.  Let's see you weasel your way out of this one.

This is the post 9/11 speech, given NINE DAYS AFTER THE ATTACKS.  Ami may remember it as a SOTU address because he references the SOTU at the beginning of it (part 1, which you can find on youtube if you desire, but that part is mostly introducing the POTUS and acknowledging visitors).


NOTE:  This was posted to youtube in Oct 2009, but the speech occurred (as referenced by Bush himself during the speech) on Spet 20, 2001.


Here is where Bush made it clear that EVERY GOVERNMENT that supports terrorism was a target.

5:10  Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.

Here is where he clears up that Al Quaeda is NOT the only terror group we are after.


5:29 Our war on terror does begins with Al Quaeda, but it does not end there.  It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.



Here is where he makes it clear that this will be a long, unusual war, not like any previous war.  He also makes it clear that ANY nation that supports terror is a legitimate target.


8:37 "Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion.  It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.  Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.  Americans should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.  It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.  We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge, or no rest.  And we will pursue nations who provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.  Every nation, in every region now has a decision to make:  Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.


Now.  THIS IS CONCLUSIVELY BEFORE THE WAR IN IRAQ, THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN or ANY front in the war on terrorism.  THIS IS CONCLUSIVE PROOF that Bush warned America this would be a long war with many fronts.

How will you change your story now to make your argument fit the facts?

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on June 29, 2010, 04:55:55 PM

Fanatical hatred of Muslims is just as demented as fanatical Muslims hating everyone else.

True, but we can't ignore that there is a rather significant mitigating circumstance in this case. 

Even though this incident was not the fault of the religion itself, it would be just as insensitive as the Mormons building a church where the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened, the Japanese building a Shinto shrine in Pearl Harbor and the Germans building a beer hall in the ruins of Auschwitz.

This is scary, son.  I was going to post just about the same thing in my original but changed my mind and went with the pork processing theme instead.  (Senator Byrd just died so "pork" was on my mind, I guess.)  But I was going to suggest a Japanese Cultural center at the Arizona memorial or a Nazi Awareness center at Dachau.   The Mountain Meadows reference didn't occur to me but it was valid as well.  Still, very spooky.  I think you have your mother's ESP.

Remember that guy whose guitar got destroyed by United Airlines and they wouldn't compensate?  He wrote a series of songs about it and embarrassed United royally. 

Well, I found out about this from a FB friend.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700043531/Delta-loses-cremains-urn-sent-to-San-Diego-instead-of-SL-airport.html?s_cid=rss-30  His mother's ashes were lost byDelta!  What is really funny is that the article talks about his wife, Rebeccah.  He isn't married to her.  His wife is named Sunny.  This is jus great, yet anothr false media report of Mormon polygamy - lol!

The good news is that all ended well.  The bad news is, according to Carl, the attendant told Rebeccah that she (the attendant) wasn't paid enough to care.  Incredible.  I hope her pay just dropped by about, oh, say 100%.