blackaeronaut Wrote:Sorry, I guess I did. But you know what the hell of it is? Islamic extremists think of mass murder as the will of God. Whereas you merely think of it as, quote, "cost-effective" and "economical". I mean, I don't like to Godwin, but, uh... your viewpoints are literally directly comparable to those of Nazis.
To say nothing of the fact that no, it didn't happen, no, it wouldn't have worked if it did (why people think pigs are Muslim Kryptonite is beyond me), and yes, there were "Muslim extremist attacks" in the 50 years after that. In fact, the British kind of incited a whole bunch of them in that little dust-up that happened immediately afterwards. Aside from being evil, your views are simplistic and grossly inaccurate. Which I guess adds fuel to the Nazi comparison.
Posts: 3,394
Threads: 588
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
robkelk Wrote:Epsilon Wrote:Did you... did you just endorse mass fucking murder?
O_O
---------------
Epsilon Looks like... and the justification he gave for it probably never happened. As a technical point - full reading of the Snopes article in question indicates that several examples of the above DID take place by men under the command of Pershing. But probably not by Pershing himself, nor officially sanctioned by him. Though I could easily see someone in his position unofficially sanctioning such actions and not claiming to be involved later for posterity. Plausible deniability and all.
Posts: 3,394
Threads: 588
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
Ayiekie Wrote:blackaeronaut Wrote:Sorry, I guess I did. But you know what the hell of it is? Islamic extremists think of mass murder as the will of God. Whereas you merely think of it as, quote, "cost-effective" and "economical". I mean, I don't like to Godwin, but, uh... your viewpoints are literally directly comparable to those of Nazis.
To say nothing of the fact that no, it didn't happen, no, it wouldn't have worked if it did (why people think pigs are Muslim Kryptonite is beyond me), and yes, there were "Muslim extremist attacks" in the 50 years after that. In fact, the British kind of incited a whole bunch of them in that little dust-up that happened immediately afterwards. Aside from being evil, your views are simplistic and grossly inaccurate. Which I guess adds fuel to the Nazi comparison. See, the difference here is that the Islamists want to enact genocide upon innocents in Israel and the west. (And before you say anything, no - not ALL Muslims. ) Whereas direct killing of the killers themselves is all that we want to do. And not even all the potential madman. Just the ones that get directly caught. Make an example of them and make the others afraid to act. As for those others with just a touch more common sense and self-preservation who are dissuaded from the path of violence, guess what - you just saved THEIR lives as well. Maybe they'll choose to do something more productive with their lives. At least more productive than throwing themselves uselessly into the meat grinder at the whim of asshole clerics who never EVER decide to take the suicide dive themselves.
Who's more Nazi-like? The people who want to kill innocents? Or the people who want to kill those who kill the innocents?
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Mind you, I'm skeptical of the whole "pigs as kryptonite" thing myself. I think most Muslims would avoid them if they could, but not think they're going to hell if they can't. Them being reasonable people, after all.
But you know, it's funny that the more crazed and religious and into the whole terrorist end of the bell-curve you get, the more unreasonable people there are.
I suppose the real question is - would you make reasonable Muslims into unreasonable ones with such acts? Or would you tamp down on the violence? I know what you think is the case. But historically speaking, it doesn't seem so cut and dried. Sometimes it seems to work. Other times it doesn't.
First off, the "Islamists" want to do no such thing, outright of a very few extreme radicals comparable in percentage to American neo-Nazis. They have actual grievances with the "West" and with Israel, they do not just randomly hate you or me or Miley Cyrus for existing. Some of these grievances are fair, some are not, and some are arguable, but they exist and there is not a significant contingent of radical Muslims whose only wish is to kill us all because they HAET OUR FREEDOMZ. Even Osama bin Laden (who has sent open letters to the American people urging them to elect leaders who do not meddle in other countries and unconditionally support Israel) isn't the cartoon evil overlord you want to believe your monolithic mass of Islamists are (this is not defending his actions or character except to note that your characterisation of "Islamists" is shallow and inaccurate).
Second, you and every other proponent of stupid barbaric shit like the apocryphal story above are engaging in wankfic that bears no resemblance to reality. You really think you're going to make a dent in Islamic violence towards the West by rounding up 50 "terrorists" (who would of course all be guilty and not be random bystanders, taxi drivers or tourists) and "making an example of them" with pigs? My god, that is so stupid I scarcely know where to begin.
- Pigs are not Muslim kryptonite. This really cannot be repeated enough; "not sure about it" is like not being sure whether forcing Catholics to work on Saturdays would cause every Catholic in the world to cower in fear of the Eternal Flames.
- You are literally arguing that radical Islamists are going to be made afraid by a bunch of them getting caught and killed, and that fear for their lives will make them stop fighting American tanks with AK-47s and blowing themselves up. Because those are such safe things with such a low mortality rate.
- I'm absolutely certain the thousands of Muslims in the United States and other coalition countries' armed forces will have their morale boosted considerably by this act which is totally not declaring open war against their religion, nosiree. It also would do nothing to convince yet more moderate Muslims that the US is on a crusade against them and it's either kill or be killed, and will not do anything to alienate the Muslim allies in the region that are crucial for America's strategic situation.
- This argument rests on the premise that Muslims simply aren't intimidated enough by the United States, and that being inhumane and cruel will force them to heel. Aside from the fact this has never worked on any indigenous population of anywhere ever without accompanying genocide or slavery, it might be worth remembering that the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan for a decade, and during that time resistance only got stronger and stronger until they eventually left. So it also rests on the premise that the Soviet Union just wasn't brutal enough to show these guys their place.
- America already basically tried this. You might have heard of Abu Ghraib. Or the various secret black ops CIA prisons where people are sent to be tortured. Or the openly known US prisons in Iraq where prisoners were tortured and some mysteriously died due to massive blunt trauma during questioning. Pigs were involved in some of this torture, amongst other things. None of it has, surprisingly enough, made Muslims stop attacking the US.
- When you find yourself arguing that the only way to stop the guys
living in the country you invaded without cause from hating and
attacking you is to be so brutal that they fear not just for their
lives, but their very souls in
attacking you, you might want to stop and consider that you are no
longer "the good guys".
- So yeah, ultimately, there isn't much difference. You ("Muslims can never cooexist with the West!") are one step off advocating genocide or at best "forced reeducation", and blackaeronaut is wanking over fantasies of being Genghis Khan and building a pyramid of heads. You are literally being worse than the thing you oppose.
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Gentlemen,
I was born and raised in the Philippine Islands, so I know very well that particular point of history that BA was talking about. It was the pacification campaign of the island of Mindanao after the Philippine insurrection (also known to the Filipinos as the Philippine American War) of 1898-1902. The 3rd largest part of the Philippine archipelago. The Spaniards never did control the hinterlands of that island and every expedition that tried it got bushwacked. Of course the Moros would stage raids at the coastal towns which were controlled by the Spaniards. The fact that the coastal towns were Roman Catholic and the Moros are Muslims didn't enter into the equation. *smirk*
Now the Americans got into the act. The orders were to bring these "banditti" under control... the methods weren't specified. All of the regular officers are veterans of the Plains Wars. It's a simple tactical choice. Either surrender peacefully or get wiped out. Brigadier General "Howling Mad" Jake's solution to the revolt at Samar Island in the same time frame was exactly that. Kill every male on the island capable of firing and carrying a rifle...I'll let you decide how low the age limit was for that operation.
As a Filipino high school student, I was horrified by that operation. As an ex-U.S Army officer, I can neither approve or condemn what they did. But you can't fault the effectiveness of the operation and the methods they used didn't raise an outrage in the States at that time.
Genocide is a very good historical option, but one option which is not going to be used by the U.S. The costs would exceed the benefits.
As to BA being worse than the thing he opposes, I doubt that. Remember, Bin Laden declared war on the U.S in 1998. The Taliban supported him on that. I'm of the mindset of let them hate us as long as they fear us. They want war, let's give them war. That or follow Spain's example. Pulled out of Iraq when Al-Quida bombed their train stations.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Yeah, see, being an ex-US Army officer is not supposed to prevent you from being able to condemn the murder of massive amounts of innocent people for the "crime" of revolting against colonial occupation.
And "you" have been giving them war for, like, 40 years now (100 years if you want to add Europe to the mix). That's, uh, kind of a big part of the reason they hate you in the first place. And funnily enough, no matter how often you keep invading their countries and murdering them by the score, they just keep hating you.
And Spain pulled out because their government lied about the bombing (saying it was Basque terrorists when they knew perfectly well it was al-Qaeda but wanted to avoid the political backlash until after the election), and the US government lied about why they were there in the first place (and the Spanish populace had never supported the war anyway). Not that it would be a bad thing if the United States actually removed all their troops, bases, and massive amount of regime-propping-up largesse from the Middle East, but that is about as likely to happen as the sun rising in the west tomorrow.
And what difference is there between calling for a pile of heads to make the enemy fear you if it's Bin Laden doing it as opposed to blackaeronaut? They are calling for mass-murder for the purpose of very literal terrorism. That is, indeed, his and your entire premise: do it to make them fear you. The abyss gazes also into you and all that, but seriously? It's a monstrous, depraved attitude to hold that shows absolutely no regard for human life.
Posts: 2,072
Threads: 62
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
0
I think the difference would be that one wants to pile up the heads of those who attempt to kill him and his, while the other is happy enough to pile up the heads of those who are contemplating eating a sandwich.
-Morgan.
I more or less agree, except I doubt we actually agree which is which in that description.
Posts: 2,072
Threads: 62
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
0
I guess I'm missing the part where blackaeronaut expressed an interest in killing random civilians.
-Morgan.
Posts: 3,314
Threads: 306
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation:
0
*facepalm*
As I see it, A. is implying that the Islamist extremists are "killing those that are a threat to me and mine" at least in their own heads.
I seem to remember hearing some extremist going on record as saying: "Since you don't have a king and claim to be governed by the will of the people, YOU ALL ORDERED THIS [attack that set off a round of Terrorist killings] and so are legitimate targets of our wrath."
But yeah. Nice shift from "Republicans are disdainful of the unemployed."
A, does every argument in this sub forum have to come back to "WAR ON TERROR? YOU MONSTERS!?"
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''
-- James Nicoll
Morganni Wrote:I guess I'm missing the part where blackaeronaut expressed an interest in killing random civilians.
-Morgan. I guess you did too. It was on the last page, viz:
"BTW, this is how terrorism ought to be fought... cost effective and
economical as you please."
As I've already pointed out, it would be impossible to carry out his wankfantasy plan of mass murder without killing random civilians. Ignoring the fact that he was specifically approving of mass murder of "extremists" who were extremists for violently resisting colonial occupation.
And as for "you monsters", Foxboy, I have never before specifically called anybody that because this is the first time people's fantasies of murdering hordes of innocent people have come out on display. I'm sorry the fact that people here advocate mass murder as a solution to political problems doesn't seem to bother you or strike you as worthy of comment.
Posts: 27,163
Threads: 2,254
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
21
I have been remiss, as Foxboy has just reminded me, in not stomping this digression further. In a thread of its own, this exchange is permitted. However, hijacking the thread and becoming the majority of it (as eyeballed for simple length) is not. I'm locking the thread. Further discussion of Republican opinions toward the unemployed may begin again in a new thread. Likewise, discussion of Islamic extremism may continue in its own, separate, thread.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
|
