Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/20/11 10:27 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Do any of you think that there is an over-arching American culture that exists throughout the different regional cultures?

Possibly a greater preoccupation with money (said of the US for centuries, US workers are among the most productive and have little vacation time), less of a concern over family (families are a lot more spread out, more nuclear than extended), more concern with notions of justice (high incarceration rates and widespread acceptance of the death penalty). But that's just me taking guesses.

At 4/30/11 12:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Imperialism is expensive. If America is having money problems, what makes you think it'll embark on such an expensive campaign?

That's the key to everything right there. Iraq was not a "resource" war. If all the US wanted was oil, then it would have very easy to appropriate the wells and refineries, draw back from major populated areas, and take whatever we wanted while the country was too fractured and chaotic to do anything about it.
But in that case, everyone would be upset, especially Americans, and so it will never happen. More likely we will see limited interventions like the one in Libya.

At 4/30/11 11:45 AM, Warforger wrote: ...China right now will probably have the most industrial capacity so if we fight them they can more easily replace their destroyed equipment then we can, even if it is sub-par in comparison to ours it'll still overcome us just like what happened in WWII with the Americans and Germans.

That's true, but in terms of overall ability, the US is still very much in the lead. China's military is growing, but its influence is limited to China and its immediate surroundings, whereas we have the logistical capability to deploy forces anywhere in the world. Ultimately, these sort of comparisons are pointless right now since there's no realistic scenario where the US and any other major army would engage each other, short of some bizarre invasion.

At 4/21/11 08:20 AM, Elfer wrote: Really? You don't think that say, everyone who is against transgenderism would IMMEDIATELY latch onto it and try to use the term "mental illness" or "mental disorder" to shun and/or discredit transgenders?

The problem is that even if you believe it is a mental illness, it's hard to justify an aggressive position. Being transgender doesn't really "do" anything to anyone else, and it doesn't prevent someone from functioning in society.
That being said, I don't think they should demand acceptance, as opposed to tolerance. In general, I wouldn't want to hang out with someone whose behavior is influenced by him being transgender to the point it would make others feel awkward, anymore than I'd want to be with a flaming gay person or anyone who just happened to be obnoxious. That doesn't make me bigoted.

It's "adieu," not "a due."

It also seems you're judging your school at least in part by the lack of social problens like bullying, inattendance, and drugs. Every criticism of the US school system I've encountered though focuses on educational scores and attainment, not the learning environment.

Judging by the various measurements and test scores, the US is a ways from the top. But I've always expected this had more to do with the relative per capita income and cultural norms. I'm willing to bet that students with comparable household income to those with similar finances in Norway or Sweden. Students in poorer countries like China and India face huge pressure to do well in school, so they tend to do better on average.

I think people usually interpret these statistics to mean that the US produces educationally average people, but that has more to do with having a lot of average people bringing the rankings down as opposed to a dearth of exceptional people.

At 4/18/11 12:00 PM, Elfer wrote: Not to mention that it's pretty presumptuous to say "This behaviour is hard-coded into our DNA and that behaviour isn't," seeing as there are perhaps several thousand steps between our DNA and our ultimate macroscopic actions.

I don't think so. It's not presumptious at all to say there's a vastly greater biological connection with male arousal over large breasts than using a knife and fork to eat dinner. Nothing's immutable, even genetic dispositions, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss them entirely.

At 4/16/11 07:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

That's not true either. All the example above was that the social identification isn't the only source of transgenderism, but with the numerous trans people I have met it's the social identification.

You said that being "normal" wasn't the goal of those people. Switching your gender so your inherent characteristics match up to social standards sounds like an effort to be more normal, which makes it a choice rather than a psychological or medical condition. I'm more interested in those who say they are are actually a different sex and how they define it if not by social norms or sex organs.

It's not just a strong adoption of the opposite sex's identity in what we would cionsider to be butch for women and flaming for men, yet with a strong identity of their biological sex. Being butch is rooted in being a woman, and being flamingly gay is still rooted in ebing a man. transgenderism is a wholistic adoption of the opposite sex.

I'm not sure what you're saying. I agree that biological differences and their implications strongly influence social gender roles, but those aren't inviolable.

At 4/17/11 02:50 AM, Ravariel wrote:

What do you mean "basis?" What is the basis for you to feel male? Also, why would you take away either the biological or social aspects of gender identity at all? Both are present and interacting constantly to hold up a person's gender identity.

I don't feel male. I am male. That's my entire point. There's no particular feeling or inner sensitivity that I can look at to determine my gender.

Really?...We use the sum total of our experience to build our identity. How creepy would it be for everyone to call you "she" or "her"?

But in that case it's my past experience as a man that's causing the issue. I don't see the parallel for transgendered people because they don't haven't been of the opposite sex before.

And physically, especially sexually when relating to whatever gender you feel your attraction, can you even understand what it is like to be in the female position (lolpun)? Can you understand the desire to take a person inside yourself? Can you understand the feeling of wishing to carry and give birth to a child?

Those are all biological instincts hard-coded into our DNA. If a man were to experience those urges (specifically the child-rearing one), I'd think it had to do with a hormonal or chemical fluke in his genes or something. That wouldn't be enough to call him transgender, according to the third part of the definition I referenced in my first post.

At 4/16/11 07:59 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

why would you seek to exclude "biological gender indicators" and "social gender traits" anyway? isn't that like trying to figure out something entirely apart from the context in which it always appears?

No, because I'm looking for the thing transgenders reference that outweighs the biological and social elements and tells them they "are" a certain sex. I don't think a man who claims to be a woman because he likes womanly things and acts in a womanly way could be considered a transgendered person. The comments I'm reading on the story I linked to suggest there's more to it than that.

and when you say "some vague feeling" it sounds like you're trying to downplay the entire psychological aspect of their condition. do you consider your own sexual preference to be just some vague feeling?

Of course not. My sexual preference emerges through a biological response to stimuli. It is very real and identifiable.
That's another problem; I've never heard a compelling analogy of how transgendered people apparently feel.

At 4/16/11 07:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So to boil this thread down, this has ZERO to do with transgender people, rather with the social construction and expectations of gender?

No, it has to do with why some people consider themselves to be transgender and how they could come to that decision. If what I've read so far is true, social gender roles may have little or nothing to do with it, unlike what I proposed in the opening post.

At 4/16/11 06:04 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 4/16/11 01:03 PM, adrshepard wrote:

The transgender girl (MtF) said that it was more than just being uncomfortable with the appearance of one's body, but a significant and pervasive level of cognitive dissonance between what she believed herself to be and the anatomy she had.

What was the basis for believing herself to be the opposite sex? What did she feel, and how did she know gender lay at the source? My biggest issue is this: If you take away the biological gender indicators and take away the social gender traits, what's left? Some vague feeling that's asymptomatic of all other psychological ailments?

But now you need to live in a woman's body as your own. Would that not be pretty uncomfortable after a while?

I don't know. What would I have left behind in my old body that made me comfortable as a man but which I would lack as a woman? I can't think of anything, nor am I consciously aware of anything besides my own anatomy that would define me as a male.

I was being facetious about the whole Muslim transgender thing, but I guess I didn't make it clear.

At 4/16/11 11:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote: ...physically what they feel emotionally, and the route through which that happens takes them down a quite unique and abnormal path.

Yes, but what does it mean to "feel" like the opposite sex? There are two definitions of gender at play: social conventions that can be broken, and anatomy differences which are defined. If my desire to be a woman has nothing to do with social conventions then what's behind that desire at all? Discomfort over having or not having certain sex organs? Does that turn taking a piss into a depressing event for the transgender crowd?

At 4/16/11 12:15 PM, Elfer wrote: Maybe you should consider talking to, I don't know, people who actually self-identify as transgender?

What, and get transgender cooties all over me?
I'll stick to the sterility of internet conversations, thank you very much.

This is just an article that got me thinking about it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health news/8454002/Puberty-blocker-for-childre n-considering-sex-change.html

I have never understood the fundamental premise of transgenderism. As listed on Wikipedia, the international criteria for Gender Identity Disorder (GID) are:
1. The desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by the wish to make his or her body as congruent as possible with the preferred sex through surgery and hormone treatment
2. The transsexual identity has been present persistently for at least two years
3. The disorder is not a symptom of another mental disorder or a chromosomal abnormality

To me, this translates to, "Anyone who can't get it through his thick skull that traditional gender roles are not set in stone."
The paradox is that transgender people supposedly feel so isolated by their failure to adhere to traditional gender roles that they identify themselves as something inbetween, a "gender-neutral" or the like, which isolates them even more. Can anyone honestly say they think someone who claims to be "gender neutral," or even more extreme, someone who gets surgery to be a transsexual, is more "normal" than a guy who happens to be sensitive and emotional or woman who, I don't know, likes cars, guns, and the color blue?

What's even more ironic is that this transgenderism seems to spring up in the cultures with the most tolerance of atypical gender traits. I mean, where are all the transgender Islamists and Chinese? Do they have a transgender underground or something?

At 4/13/11 11:15 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Yes he did. He intentionally insulted an entire people and called them all terrorists. If that's not wrong, I don't know what is.

It's not wrong. It just is. Some people are jerks and do things that piss others off. It's part of life. Burning a book, no matter what book it is, doesn't hurt or damage anything or anyone besides the book. I don't sympathize with the people who claim to be offended, even those who aren't violent, because they don't accept this simple truth.

Disliking an action, and those who do it, is not the same as declaring it to be "wrong."

At 4/11/11 06:22 AM, Saren wrote: They'll still murder people. And we may as well NOT make them pissed off at us and take the risk of MORE of these incidents happening.

So the prospect of self-censorship to appease terrorists doesn't bother you at all?

Also I don't think the pastor should be arrested, he didn't directly cause the trouble. I just think he should be told not to do it again.

He should be told not to exercise his rights as an American. Got it. The US government intervening to discourage the fundamental libertires of a citizen won't at all energize radicals and strengthen the terrorists' cause. Yep.

There are greater aspects to consider than the loss of a few lives.

At 4/11/11 06:28 AM, Soviet wrote: For some reason people have the idea that if we allow extreme free speech and don't cave in to them it will show them that we aren't going to change.

It's not about sending a message to terrorists, it's about preserving who we are as a people.

At 4/8/11 09:09 PM, Warforger wrote: However if I did, would you? Would you say I'm a nice guy just because I told you I was going to?

Of course not. It's my house. But I can guarantee I'd be more angry if you bombed it without warning and I somehow survived.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Pages/MediaPla yer.aspx?MediaUrl=http://switch3.castup.
net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=1913349!!!!
ak=null&LANGUAGE_NAME=En

I can't get it to work even after I deleted some of the spaces after cutting and pasting. All I see is a "close" button forthe media player.

Yah, however the people don't actually believe it, it's more of a myth.

Fair enough. I meant it as a joke.

Yes, however using human shields is more of a act of desperation, I'm merely attacking how people think that it's brave to attack people with a unmaned drone controlling it from thoasands of miles away and call civilian shields cowardly.

Well I wouldn't say that a UAV operator is "brave," since he's not really risking anything. But surrounding yourself with innocent people as protection isn't exactly part of a warrior tradition. It's cowardly because the person fights while forcibly spreading the risk that accompanies it onto innocent people.

No. However this means that the military is corrupt and does do this. However what I said was that there could be many more but we simply don't know.

By that reasoning, all militaries are corrupt because no military is free from delinquents. And yes, there probably are more people who have done it, but that probability isn't enough to conclude that its standard practice in the IDF, official or otherwise.

I brought up Hamas as an example of a group in which using human shields is standard practice so you could see the difference.

They don't want them to die, they just don't want the Israeli's to fire their rockets so the Israeli's can move in and they can fire back, but instead the Israeli's fire anyway.

Perhaps they could justify that strategy once or twice, but once Israel demonstrated it wouldn't restrain itself, then it's hard to defend Hamas when they do it repeatedly.

Weird thing though, Hamas's rockets are unreliable and tend to miss, Israel has the modern rockets which are reliable, both sides if they fire can hit civilians, but Israel can hit more civilians and often they hit alot more then necesary to hit one terrorist.

That is a very difficult claim to support, and neither of us is in any position to know for certain because the Israeli targeting procedure isn't public knowledge. The only way to assess the Israeli strikes that I can think of would be to compare similar attacks against similar targets performed by other armies with equivalent technology, like the US. It would take a lot of research.

HOWEVER I did say that it is no more justifiable then other "accepted" tactics that cause even more suffering and destruction and it's easy to see how a group who wants to fight the military is forced to use these tactics in order to fight it.

Which begs the question of whether the tactics are worth it. You're missing the important distinction between "accepted" tactics and those of terrorists and insurgents. The first is designed to take out a target with a minimum of collateral damage, like using a guided missile. The second is meant to carry out an attack(often with no concern for civilian casualties) while maximizing collateral damage in case of retaliation. You can't legitimize this tactic without denying the right of a targeted group or force to retaliate.
Israel has taken the position that the impotence of Hamas or Hezbollah rocket attacks is irrelevant and that it has a right to strike back, even if doing so may cause more civilian casualties that the original rocket strike. So long as Israel restricts itself to the minimum degree of force, like using a single guided missle, required to complete the objective, I think it's a reasonable strategy.

At 4/7/11 09:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote: When have I ever excused the existence or acts of the fundamentalists? I am mad at the pastor because he did the stupid act almost for the sole purpose of goading the extremists into attacking people.

You excuse them by detracting from their ultimate responsibility. Either the extremists are solely responsible, or the pastor is solely responsible.
It doesn't matter what the pastor "intended." What he actually did is what's important. He made a statement about Islam, which is his right. He is not responsible for the actions of those who don't like his statement, even if they threaten violence before he makes it.

You relegate their behavior to instinctual reflexes performed without thought or reason, which is EXACTLY the way we describe the behavior of children and animals.

And the bombing of civilians is anything but childish and animalistic?

To quibble, yes, bombing is, because it takes effort and concentration to make a bomb. You can't do it in a frenzied state, though I suppose people like that could just have them lying around ready.

Perhaps you and the other guy were so quick to play the race card that you placed my statement which was clearly aimed at the extremists, at any race or ethnic group as a whole. I made the analogy of the extremists to hornets, and that is not far off.

Yes, now they are. And in any normal society, they would lose their rights as people and go to prison or be executed. But that's only after the fact. You can't say with certainty who the criminals and extremists are until they actually break the law or become violent. You can guess, they can claim they are, but it isn't enough.

I think the biggest factor that hasn't yet been said is whether the behavior of those Muslims is unique or just representative of human behavior (i.e. there are always going to be some crazies among large numbers of people). If it were just as likely that some portion of Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc would respond in the same way to an accordingly offensive act, then your position would be stronger. But, as that other guy said, it probably wouldn't happen, or at least seems far less likely. If you agree with that, then you should see that it's reasonable to hold Muslims, including potential and self-identified extremists, to the same standards as we would hold anyone else.

And that means that the pastor should be able to burn a holy book or say anything else he wants to without the expectation of violence.

At 4/8/11 12:20 PM, Warforger wrote: Wow. That is just amazing. So they don't give him a reason AND they force him out of his home? Ok asshole how about I say I'm gonna blow up your house before hand and that you should get the fuck out and I don't know live on the streets?

Lol, what do you think the reason was? It probably had something to do with Islamic militancy and rockets, I bet.

Do you have fighter jets with guided missiles? No? Then hell no, I'm not going to leave my house just because you say so.
Before you go any further, give me a link to this story so we can stop talking in hypotheticals.

Oh and BTW the Qu'ran condemns suicide and doesn't say 72 Virgins is a gift in heaven. Just to clear that up for you.

Yes, and the Bible says we should turn the other cheek on our enemies (unless they defy you, then you can turn them into a pillar of salt or force them to wander the desert for the rest of their lives).

No. The only reason we bombed Japan was because we wanted it to surrender to us and only us with the USSR out of the picture to not get another Germany. The Japanese were already starting to consider surrender anyway without the bombings.

Not at all. Truman welcomed the Soviet entry into the war against Japan and those on the Japanese executive council who considered surrender had no virtually no influence compared to the military leaders who refused to recognize defeat until the deployment of the second atomic bomb. Instead of relying on Eisenhower, who wasn't even remotely invovled, or Stimson, who only said the Soviets were a factor decades later, try looking at Truman's journal and the accounts from the Japanese officials on the Council.

and the almighty and brave tactic of using a Predator no pilot plane and firing a missile on the cowards on the ground with no weapons to fire back is also all acceptable?

I can't tell if your English isn't good enough to make whatever type of sentence you tried to make, or if you're just so riled up that you're unable to string together a coherent statement.

........Wow. So you have no argument at all and you continue on to say you can't read very well? Cool.

If you tried making your point through sentences that didn't sound like they came from a retarded Pakistani immigrant it'd make the whole process much easier.

And using a predator drone (or "no pilot plane," if you has the problems with the vocabularys) is nothing at all like using human shields.

Your possession error is actually more accurate, since only a few individual Israeli soldiers have been caught (and prosecuted, which shows how "fine" the IDF considers the practice.)

"Caught"? So only if they're caught it means they actually did it? Ok so I guess teenagers don't actually smoke weed unless they're caught.....

A couple guys out of what, 600,000 soldiers are caught using human shields and you think it's conclusive evidence that its the standard practice of the IDF? Tell me, how many prosecutions has Hamas carried out against its own forces for doing the same thing? Zero? Could it be that's because it's the basis of their entire frigging strategy?

They WANT the civilians to die, do you not understand that? They deliberately fire from civilian areas in the hope that Israel will strike back and kill bystanders, who the Hamas govt. is supposed to protect, so they can use the deaths as propaganda. And you, with your supreme emphathy and compassion for all human life, fall for it. Every single time the Israelis try to wipe these scumbags out, you spring up out of nowhere to defend Hamas and its kind for using human shields since they are too weak to fight any other way.

It's astounding how you can berate Israel for the actions of a handful of guys while an actual terrorist organization does the exact same thing as a general practice and you stay silent.

At 4/7/11 06:23 PM, Warforger wrote: That isn't the argument, not all the cases have evidence of terrorists and even the IDF website hosted a news report where a man was phoned saying he had 24 hours to leave his home and he wasn't given any notice as to why and so he and many of his fellow Palestinians joined together on the roof of his home to protest the imminent rocket attack.

That guy and his friends sound like the biggest morons alive (or dead morons). The evil occupiers are kind enough to tell him to escape and he thinks its the right circumstances for nonviolent resistance. That's what we call "thinning the herd."
Unless of course martyrdom is what he wanted, in which case it's still fortunate because he never had the opportunity to get his 72 virgins the old-fashioned way through suicide bombing.
In any case, I don't think the exact targeting procedure the Israelis use is part of the discussion.

Oh, but bombing civilians with the most powerful atomic weapons is, annihilating a whole countries infrastructure and agriculture is

Certainly, if the alternative is completely destroying dozens of additional cities and their inhabitants while suffering catastrophic losses among your own forces.

and the almighty and brave tactic of using a Predator no pilot plane and firing a missile on the cowards on the ground with no weapons to fire back is also all acceptable?

I can't tell if your English isn't good enough to make whatever type of sentence you tried to make, or if you're just so riled up that you're unable to string together a coherent statement.

If it works it's fine because it's WAR, if you don't like it go write a letter to them how you don't like it but as it stands it's a tactic that even the Israeli's have been caught doing.

Your possession error is actually more accurate, since only a few individual Israeli soldiers have been caught (and prosecuted, which shows how "fine" the IDF considers the practice.)

At 4/7/11 06:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So someone who provokes the killing of others is fine, just as long as the actuall killers are bad people?

How does it provoke killing other people? How does one American pastor burning a Koran say make UN workers in Afghanistan a target? The only connection is that the fundamentalists CHOSE to go after them in particular.

If someone in Iran burnt a copy of the Bible, so a bunch of God-Hates-Fags types went round to the Iranian embassy and shot 8 people, what form would the subsequent moral debate take? Would we say the Iranian had blood on his hands?

If he did this knowing what the likely result would be.

Uh, no, we would say that the God Hates types were psychos and the Iranian was a jerk who isn't in any way responsible. That would be the sensible conclusion.

If a bunch of gay activists got so pissed off that America allowed homophobic preachers that they started committing domestic terrorism, what form would the subsequent moral debate take?

If there was a situation like this one, we would treat it the same...There is no group just drooling for a preacher to day that so they can blow something up.

But if there were, you would accept that they were violent psychotics and blame the preacher for being insensitive, right?

To compare burning a Qu'ran to kicking a hornets nest / provoking a lion at the zoo, I think, displays elements of racism. Muslims aren't a lesser-species that can't be held responsible for their actions.

Not only are YOU placing racism where there is none, you are equating the whole of Islam with the crazies who do such attacks.

Oh, it exists, in its most fiendish and subversive form. You excuse the existence of these fundamentalists by placing any blame on the pastor. You can be mad at the pastor because his message is stupid, but you should reserve the whole of your outrage over the violence on the people who actually attacked and murdered the UN workers.

People have choice. People have self-control. We demand that people refrain from violence unless violence is inflicted or about do be inflicted upon them or those they love. The rest of the world demands the same. When you start saying that it's inevitable certain people will act a certain way in response to something, to the extent that you start assigning responsiblity of their behavior to third parties, you de-humanize them by taking away their free will. You relegate their behavior to instinctual reflexes performed without thought or reason, which is EXACTLY the way we describe the behavior of children and animals.
Yes, there is racism here. Your eyes are so clouded with political correctness and an almost nihilistic tolerance of human behavior that you can't see it.

At 4/7/11 01:01 PM, MrFlopz wrote: The argument seems to be that Israeli citizens are in danger, but the "solution" puts Palestinian lives in danger. Israel is a much safer place to live than the Gaza Strip.

The "solution" is the only viable response to an attack. You can't allow rocket strikes against your country to go unanswered and it's unreasonable to demand that Israel not respond. The true blame lies with those who launch the attacks from populated areas, knowing that a retaliatory strike would risk the lives of innocent people around them. Using human shields is not a legimate tactic to be accepted and recognized.

At 4/7/11 10:31 AM, Liminoid wrote: Saying he is somewhat responsible is saying he was somewhat responsible, not saying its ok to kill people.

That would be true if burning the book literally had some role in the UN workers deaths. However, it was only relevant in that some people knew that information and consciously decided to act on it a certain way. The killings were done by choice, not by reflex.

At 4/3/11 05:40 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Exactly, it's not possible to argue the human shield right to life while not harming it means innocents will be killed.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. You can't argue about these other "potential victims" having more rights then an actual person we KNOW will die. You're arguing a theoretical victim has more rights then an actual victim.

The victims aren't the same merely because they are innocent civilians. Ten Israeli civilians killed in a random carbombing are not equivalent to ten Palestinian civilians killed in a strike against the guy who organized the car bombing. One is a terrorist attack, the other is a strike with collateral damage. In one case, the rationale for the attack is just, for the other it is not.
The same applies for collateral damage in an Israeli reprisal for a rocket attack, even if the rockets cause no casualties.

I'm not arguing that. I'm asking how can the idea of shooting through a human shield, ending an innocent life...to protect innocent life...it makes no sense.

Because the attack isn't a one-time event. If someone responsible for a rocket attack that caused no casualties were somehow unable to ever launch an attack again, then it would not be worth shooting through the human shield. But obviously that's not the case. Preventing future attacks against your own people is generally worth the risk of collateral damage among other people.

At 4/4/11 04:40 AM, Dogbert581 wrote:

Oh, here we go again. Look, bar-none, Islamic terrorist groups are the most dangerous ones facing the West,

Really? I'm sure in Spain they would say ETA was the most dangerous terrorist group. Also bare in mind the hangover the UK has from The Troubles in Northern Ireland. Including this which happened a few days ago http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ir eland-12953967

That's because the Spanish are a bunch of pussies who surrendered to terrorists after the Madrid train bombings, which killed more people in one day that ETA had in any year.

The IRA haven't done anything on the scale of the London Subway bombings for decades.

At 4/4/11 12:38 AM, Gario wrote:

Yeah, that's going to have an affect on... one group of religious people I can think of. May as well just come out and say 'Let's kill those damn Muslims that are getting angry at the sacrilege on their holy book & the intolerance against their religion'.

I wouldn't go so far as killing, of course. But yes, I would consider those people who feel the need to protest what someone does to an inanimate object thousands of miles away to be dangerous fundamentalists in need of reeducation or a societal change that brings about more sensible future generations.
My problem is that you're taking what pretty much the entire world would consider sensible behavior, not getting crazy violent and upset over the fact someone unimportant insults you or your beliefs, and throwing it away when it applies to Middle Eastern Muslims. I don't see how you can do that without denigrating Middle Eastern Muslims entirely, since you're implying that, like children or animals, they don't have any self-control.

At 4/3/11 10:46 PM, Gario wrote: Wait, isn't that another form of oppression? No wonder the world often hates America...

By the way, calling for the oppression of those that don't believe in your belief (of tolerance) is technically just as destructive. You'd be willing to lead a campaign against those that are intolerant of other's beliefs?

I'd keep my targeted belief systems to those such as "anyone who destroys a certain mass-produced book I like deserves to die" and the like. I'll find some way to manage the crippling moral ambiguity and soul-searching that entails.

At 4/3/11 07:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote: True or not, that doesn't give us a free ticket to hate and insult the entire religion.

Of course it does. Talk is cheap, and anyone can say anything about anyone. Part of being an adult is coping with that fact without exploding into a violent rage.

At 4/3/11 08:18 PM, Gario wrote: Aren't we just retreading old ground now?

Yeah but it hasn't been locked yet, and there have been some new developments.

At 4/3/11 08:59 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: True, but consider this: there's a huge cultural difference. Just because "we" can accept other peoples beliefs and live our lives (well, maybe not all of us. But the point stands) doesn't mean other cultures can do the same. Whether or not that's good or bad is irrelevant...

No, it's the entire point. Calling for the death or imprisonment of someone solely because his beliefs conflict with yours is inherently destructive. That mode of thinking has been behind nearly every single form of oppression and many horrible atrocities throughout history.

It is not a legitimate "cultural value" and we have a responsibility to stamp it out whenever and wherever we can. A civilized tolerance for other people's opinions is a Western value that deserves to be forced upon others.

At 4/3/11 05:06 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: IRA, Army of God, Lambs of Christ... There's plenty of christian terror groups. And islamic terror in the western world is pretty minor compared to separatist terrorism; in europe 2010, only a single act of terrorism where connected to islamism, while 237 where from separatists (and an additional bunch from left- or rightwing activists or single issue groups).

Oh, here we go again. Look, bar-none, Islamic terrorist groups are the most dangerous ones facing the West, and especially the United States. Abortion protesters who kill a doctor and anarchists who burn down a building are not even close to the same league as those who killed thousands on 9/11.

Well, he shouldn't do it because it's retarded. If he isn't knowledgable of the international situation in respect to muslims and terrorism, maybe he should read up a bit before doing anything that's seen as very insulting to these people.

Why? Why cater to their ignorance? He should just censor himself because some thugs thousands of miles away threaten violence?
Burning the Koran is a great way to show what's at stake in these countries everyone wants to run away from. What we see now is the result of decades or centuries of a stagnant and/or oppressive lifestyle. Abandoning the fledgling gains we've fought over this far only prolongs the rampant ignorance and barbarity.

Could have something to do with lebanon not bombing the US on a regular basis and americans generally not living under extremely harsh circumstances.

Oh boo hoo. They live a tough life? I guess that makes it "understandable" that they would storm a building owned by a completely uninvolved organization and murder and decapitate some of the people there.
There's no excuse for the violence, and there's no legitimate reason for them to protest at all.
"We are displeased that this guy burned a book we like." Grow up.

So, because extremism in certain segments of a society of 28 million people, we should burn the holy book of a billion people. Yeah, that's retarded. Bigtime retarded.

Nope. Burning the Koran acheived exactly what he wanted.

Burning the quran doesn't say "certain segments of afghan society are problematic", it says "islam should be eradicated" to those seeing it.

And what if it does? The average Afghani can't help but fly into a murderous rage if a Westerner does something offensive? We should cater to the "inherent deficiencies" of Arab Muslims like we would some dangerous animal or child race?

At 4/2/11 02:33 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Oh right...because at the end of the day it ALWAYS works in our best interests to manipulate elections, and foreign regimes to firstly serve OUR needs and not the people's right? It's not like there's been situations where we supported a bad government and the people overthrew it, and certainly not in the last few years or actively right now...oh wait...

You don't even have to go that far. The people can elect whomever they want, but the leader will still be subject to the same incentives for cooperating with the US. Many Middle Eastern governments do just this, balancing the resources we can offer with domestic anti-US sentiment.

At this point, anyone is preferable to Gaddafi because he will be more receptive to US involvement. The weaker and more fragmented the government, the stronger our position becomes, provided that a strong central government is actually plausible (unlike in Afghanistan).

At 3/28/11 10:03 AM, KemCab wrote: Which is pretty much a field day for the West: you can change the existing regime without anyone complaining, because he's a dictator and all that. Which means he's all bad -- never mind that Libya is much better off than virtually every other African nation, let alone all the countries of the Maghreb, and that he's probably killed way less people than Saddam.

If it's so great, why are the Libyans rebelling? Are they just spoiled?

I laughed at the "probably killed less people than Saddam" line. Yeah, a lot of people killed fewer people than Saddam. That doesn't make them any less worthy of an overthrow.

and we had plenty of reports of him doing this before it turned into full on civil war, let alone the UN airstrikes.

What difference does that make? You sound like bcdemon, apparently arguing that consistency trumps pragmatism.

So? That's their problem, not ours.

True, until the time comes when we can do something about it without risking many people or resources. Don't you think it would be good for the US to have a new government in Libya, one that was more democratic and whose leaders at least privately acknowledged how the US helped make it happen? That has to be worth something.

At 3/22/11 06:26 PM, Thecrazyman wrote: I think Libya like other nations need to deal with their own problems on their own, for Libya is not our problem to be dealing...

Yes, because nothing that happens overseas, especially in oil-producing countries, ever has any bearing on this country.

Taken for granted we simply invaded Libya,

Not at all, retard. Yes, you are a retard because I see exactly where you are going with it. The Libyans suffer for decades under Gaddafis oppression, they rebel against him in force, and when the US launches cruise missiles and airstrikes against the despot, that is exactly the same as some unprovoked imperialist takeover.
Either that or you just run your mouth without understanding what you say.

further more it's costing us even more money then we are gaining

Oh really? Have you calculated the monetary benefits of another friendly Arab nation should the rebels win with our assistance, getting all the gratitude without any of the negativity that comes from an occupation?

and last but not least the President of the United States in turn has NO AUTHORITY to declare military action against another nation as part of the United States Constitution...

Listen to you bitch and moan about procedure and constitutionality over such stakes as a low-risk military operation when we're targeting a person who exercises ABSOLUTE TOTALITARIAN CONTROL over his people.
I'm far more nationalist than most people, but I see it as both a moral and pragmatic obligation to promote democracy abroad, and there few better opportunities than what has arisen for us in Libya. Our military power can make a substantial difference, and if it's enough to bring down Gaddafi without serious cost, we should do it. I have no problem whatsoever in this case with Obama stretching the legal bounds of UN resolutions if it means helping the Libyan people and circumventing the need for tortuous bickering and posturing in Congress.

At 3/21/11 06:17 PM, bcdemon wrote: Really? So as long as a country allows the USA to base it's ships there, the US gov turns a blind eye to murdering peaceful protesters? What a great deal for Bahrain, they get the security of the US 6th fleet, and criminal immunity from killing civilians.

What's your point? Are you saying that supporting democratic movements inconsistently is worse than supporting none at all?

I can't understand the domestic outrage against the operations in Libya (condemnation from oppressive Arab governments is no surprise). Everyone's so concerned about "staying within the mandate" and not "attacking" anyone. Why not attack Gaddafi and provide air support for the rebels? It's a low risk and relatively low-cost operation and if it works, then everyone involved is better off. Does anyone actually think that limited US armed intervention on behalf of democratic movements will somehow strengthen despotic regimes and discourage future uprisings?

At 3/2/11 03:40 PM, Ravariel wrote: To get slightly back on point, I saw this today and it blew my mind a little bit.

US media is covering the protests in Egypt and Lybia more than the ones in Wisconsin, in what is a rather ironic reversal of the US media's usual M.O. of ignoring floods and earthquakes in favor of Britney's weave.

What do you think is behind this strangeness?

I don't think it's that strange. The Middle Eastern riots have violence and conflict, villains, drama, and significant national implications in terms of the oil supply and future cooperation with the US. The Wisconsin protests are just yelling and screaming day after day.