Terrorism defined!
dev
Terrorism defined!
----------------------
It is so simple, 'terrorism' is a hyphenated word, that for context
destroying ideological reasons, the first bit gets routinely dropped.
After removing the first word that puts 'terror' in its context,
ideologues are free to point the finger in their propaganda campaigns
at their enemies.
Its first and foremost form is 'imperial-terror'. In this case, it is
the subjects of conquest who experience it. The Palestinians under
Zionist occupation clearly experience it everyday as collateral damage
in the creation of Greater Israel- all funded by the US taxpayer.
Imperialist are never happy unless they have some 'untermenchen' to
push around and exploit as coolies and serfs, so they don't give
Palestinians democratic rights, neither the vote and
non-discrimination etc nor independence either. Victims of imperial
terror are just expected to just disappear like the American Indians
or Australian Blacks, off to their reservations or ghettos and come
when they are called. Resistance is eliminated by extermination-
shootings/poisoning etc. An now thanks to G W Bush by US missiles.
In reality 'imperial-terror' expects no resistance as the imperialists
believe in their absolute superiority through an assumed ruthless
monopoly of violence. When imperialists fight illiterate savages they
usually destroy their culture and win- peace via victory- game set and
match over.
The second form is 'resistance-terror'. In this case, it is the
victims of imperial terror who choose to be passive victims no longer,
and resist the imperial aggressor with whatever tools are at hand.
Imperialists tend to over-reach when the intended victims are literate
people and have more organizational skill than the illiterate savages-
the Imperial contests of the Great Powers during WW1 shows the folly
of imperial campaigns against literate victims who thereby gain access
to knowledge - to the strategic and tactical technologies that may
seriously damage their enemies. In the case of 9-11, US flying
schools.
Palestinian suicide bombings and 9-11 are examples of
resistance-terror against the imperialist Zionist state of Israel and
the USA. Don't get into the question -is it justified? Moralizing on
the issue is just propaganda for one side or the other.
Having thus defined it, we now know how to objectively free ourselves
from the threat of terrorism .
Simple really, just stop supporting imperialist wars or those nations
who do.
Bring the Australian troops home now, and boycott the goods of the
Imperialist Israel /USA to reinforce their international isolation in
the UN.
After their economies collapse, the realists in Israel and the USA
will have the political leverage to bring their imperialist ideologues
into line and withdraw from lands where they are unwelcome.
Only then will we have an end to terrorism -peace by draw -game, set
and match over!
Terrorism defined!
----------------------
It is so simple, 'terrorism' is a hyphenated word, that for context
destroying ideological reasons, the first bit gets routinely dropped.
After removing the first word that put 'terror' in its context,
ideologues are free to point the finger in their propaganda campaigns
at their enemies.
Its first and foremost form is 'imperial-terror'. In this case, it is
the subjects of conquest who experience it. The Palestinians under
Zionist occupation clearly experience it everyday as collateral damage
in the creation of Greater Israel- all funded by the US taxpayer.
Imperialist are never happy unless they have some 'untermenchen' to
push around and exploit as coolies and serfs, so they don't give
Palestinians democratic rights, neither the vote and
non-discrimination etc nor independence either. Victims of imperial
terror are just expected to just disappear like the American Indians
or Australian Blacks, off to their reservations or ghettos and come
when they are called. Resistance is eliminated by extermination-
shootings/poisoning etc. An now thanks to G W Bush by US missiles.
In reality 'imperial-terror' expects no resistance as the imperialists
believe in their absolute superiority through an assumed ruthless
monopoly of violence. When imperialists fight illiterate savages they
usually destroy their culture and win- peace via victory- game set and
match over.
The second form is 'resistance-terror'. In this case, it is the
victims of imperial terror who choose to be passive victims no longer,
and resist the imperial aggressor with whatever tools are at hand.
Imperialists tend to over-reach when the intended victims are literate
people and have more organizational skill than the illiterate savages-
the Imperial contests of the Great Powers during WW1 shows the folly
of imperial campaigns against literate victims who thereby gain access
to knowledge - to the strategic and tactical technologies that may
seriously damage their enemies. In the case of 9-11, US flying
schools.
Palestinian suicide bombings and 9-11 are examples of
resistance-terror against the imperialist Zionist state of Israel and
the USA. Don't get into the question -is it justified? Moralizing on
the issue is just propaganda for one side or the other.
Having thus defined it, we now know how to objectively free ourselves
from the threat of terrorism .
Simple really, just stop supporting imperialist wars or those nations
who do.
Bring the Australian troops home now, and boycott the goods of the
Imperialist Israel /USA to reinforce their international isolation in
the UN.
After their economies collapse, the realists in Israel and the USA
will have the political leverage to bring their imperialist ideologues
into line and withdraw from lands where they are unwelcome.
Only then will we have an end to terrorism -peace by draw -game, set
and match over!
<SmirkS>
> After removing the first word that puts 'terror' in its context,
> ideologues are free to point the finger in their propaganda campaigns
> at their enemies.
>
> Its first and foremost form is 'imperial-terror'. In this case, it is
> the subjects of conquest who experience it. The Palestinians under
> Zionist occupation clearly experience it everyday as collateral damage
> in the creation of Greater Israel- all funded by the US taxpayer.
how 'bout that.
--
TheTruthHurts.
Jim Austin
Much of what is called imperialism are efforts by certain nations to
protect their citizens from acts by other nations.
Governments exist to protect the rights of their citizens. Governments
also have the duty to extend the protection of its laws to foreign
guests who come withing its jurisdiction. When certain governments
fail to perform that duty, if instead they kidnap, rob and/or kill
foreigners, give sanctuary to pirates and terrorist factions that
attack citizens of other nations, then that government risks running
afowl of those other nations. Imperialism is the policy of such other
nations to protect the rights of their own citizens as they travel
around to such offending nations.
> The second form is 'resistance-terror'. In this case, it is the
> victims of imperial terror who choose to be passive victims no longer,
> and resist the imperial aggressor with whatever tools are at hand.
> Imperialists tend to over-reach when the intended victims are literate
> people and have more organizational skill than the illiterate savages-
> the Imperial contests of the Great Powers during WW1 shows the folly
> of imperial campaigns against literate victims who thereby gain access
> to knowledge - to the strategic and tactical technologies that may
> seriously damage their enemies. In the case of 9-11, US flying
> schools.
This dev poster sympathizes with Third World nations that like to
kidnap foreigners within their jurisdiction, seize (nationalize) their
property and give refuge to terrorist organizations that attack
citizens of other nations.
> Palestinian suicide bombings and 9-11 are examples of
> resistance-terror against the imperialist Zionist state of Israel and
> the USA.
This guy sympathizes with terrorists to destroy Israel, to replace a
government that recognizes rights with a dictatorship that recognizes
no rights.
> Don't get into the question -is it justified? Moralizing on
> the issue is just propaganda for one side or the other.
There is no doubt that this dev character believes that Palestinian
terrorists are justified, including strapping dynamite to their own
children to blow up Israeli children.
> Having thus defined it, we now know how to objectively free ourselves
> from the threat of terrorism .
>
> Simple really, just stop supporting imperialist wars or those nations
> who do.
He believes that one can gain safety by sucking up to terrorists.
> Bring the Australian troops home now, and boycott the goods of the
> Imperialist Israel /USA to reinforce their international isolation in
> the UN.
Perhaps the UN can move to Australia.
> After their economies collapse, the realists in Israel and the USA
> will have the political leverage to bring their imperialist ideologues
> into line and withdraw from lands where they are unwelcome.
Yes. They can lay down and die.
> Only then will we have an end to terrorism -peace by draw -game, set
> and match over!
He believes he can find safety by allowing terrorists to dictate
Australian policy.
<Snip> Repetitions.
dev
Imperial terror exploits the assets and resources of other 'entities'
be they nations or indigenous tribal groups. Imperialism is an imposed
will irrespective of the actions or desires of the subjects of
conquest- the assets then belong to the empire that seizes them and
holds them. The great imperial heists throughout history could thus be
justified on the grounds of 'protecting the missionaries'.
>
>Governments exist to protect the rights of their citizens. Governments
>also have the duty to extend the protection of its laws to foreign
>guests who come withing its jurisdiction. When certain governments
>fail to perform that duty, if instead they kidnap, rob and/or kill
>foreigners, give sanctuary to pirates and terrorist factions that
>attack citizens of other nations, then that government risks running
>afowl of those other nations. Imperialism is the policy of such other
>nations to protect the rights of their own citizens as they travel
>around to such offending nations.
Real protection starts with not 'offending' other groups in the first
place by imperial and neo-imperial projections of power. The USA
has killed literally millions of individuals by projections of
imperial-terror since WW2. The argument that imperial-terror is
justified by resistance-terror is putting the cart before the horse!
>
>> The second form is 'resistance-terror'. In this case, it is the
>> victims of imperial terror who choose to be passive victims no longer,
>> and resist the imperial aggressor with whatever tools are at hand.
>> Imperialists tend to over-reach when the intended victims are literate
>> people and have more organizational skill than the illiterate savages-
>> the Imperial contests of the Great Powers during WW1 shows the folly
>> of imperial campaigns against literate victims who thereby gain access
>> to knowledge - to the strategic and tactical technologies that may
>> seriously damage their enemies. In the case of 9-11, US flying
>> schools.
>
>This dev poster sympathizes with Third World nations that like to
>kidnap foreigners within their jurisdiction, seize (nationalize) their
>property and give refuge to terrorist organizations that attack
>citizens of other nations.
I neither sympathize with the ideologues of imperial-terror nor with
the ideologues of resistance-terror. I am just pointing out that the
empirical fact that the terror the West loves to hate is a product of
the imperial-terror it either participates in or is acquiescent about.
>
>> Palestinian suicide bombings and 9-11 are examples of
>> resistance-terror against the imperialist Zionist state of Israel and
>> the USA.
>
>This guy sympathizes with terrorists to destroy Israel, to replace a
>government that recognizes rights with a dictatorship that recognizes
>no rights.
A Zionist state of Israel does not included the citizens of the
occupied territories in its political democracy. It has toyed with
the idea of ethnic cleaning the rest of the Arab population, so that
they never threaten the Jewish majority. Gaza looks likely to be
Sharon's exclusion zone as the imperial-terrorist cleansing of the
West bank continues.
>
>> Don't get into the question -is it justified? Moralizing on
>> the issue is just propaganda for one side or the other.
>
>There is no doubt that this dev character believes that Palestinian
>terrorists are justified, including strapping dynamite to their own
>children to blow up Israeli children.
You cannot end the cycle of violence by taking sides, you can end
it only if you understand its cause - imperial-terror and deal with
it.
Holding up the bodies of Jewish babies for the world to see, is just
so much context destroying propaganda. Why are they dying
other than in the context of just another vicious European colonial
invasion of Palestine - another re-run of imperial-terror with the
added problem for the Zionist invaders that this time they picked on
'literate people' and they have been a tougher nut to crack?
>
>> Having thus defined it, we now know how to objectively free ourselves
>> from the threat of terrorism .
>>
>> Simple really, just stop supporting imperialist wars or those nations
>> who do.
>
>He believes that one can gain safety by sucking up to terrorists.
No I believe that you are underestimating the power of
resistance-terrorism and over-estimating the power of the
imperial-terror to win a war against literate peoples. The west has
two options deal directly with the problem of imperial-terror and pull
the USA and Israel into line, or go all the way with GW Bush into
WW3.
>
>> Bring the Australian troops home now, and boycott the goods of the
>> Imperialist Israel /USA to reinforce their international isolation in
>> the UN.
>
>Perhaps the UN can move to Australia.
Europe would be a better location- Australia is acting like a
US puppet.
>
>> After their economies collapse, the realists in Israel and the USA
>> will have the political leverage to bring their imperialist ideologues
>> into line and withdraw from lands where they are unwelcome.
>
>Yes. They can lay down and die.
What problem do you have with peaceful coexistence?
>
>> Only then will we have an end to terrorism -peace by draw -game, set
>> and match over!
>
>He believes he can find safety by allowing terrorists to dictate
>Australian policy.
Either equal rights or their own state- then they would not care a fig
about Australian policy. What is it about democracy that you have
a problem with or does plutocracy and imperial-terror grease your
palm? Waiting for the privatization of Iraqi oil assets?
dev carter
Jim Austin
This guy uses "exploits" in its Marxist sense where free, voluntary
exchanges are defined as exploition.
> Imperialism is an imposed will irrespective of the actions or desires of the
> subjects of conquest- the assets then belong to the empire that seizes them
> and holds them. The great imperial heists throughout history could thus be
> justified on the grounds of 'protecting the missionaries'.
People who prattle on about "imperialism" are generally advocates of,
or apologists for, dictatorships. They believe in collective ownership
of a nation's resources, "collective" meaning control by a dictator
claiming to represent the collective. Thus anything not consistent
with dictatorial control is called exploitation and/or imperialism.
> >Governments exist to protect the rights of their citizens. Governments
> >also have the duty to extend the protection of its laws to foreign
> >guests who come withing its jurisdiction. When certain governments
> >fail to perform that duty, if instead they kidnap, rob and/or kill
> >foreigners, give sanctuary to pirates and terrorist factions that
> >attack citizens of other nations, then that government risks running
> >afowl of those other nations. Imperialism is the policy of such other
> >nations to protect the rights of their own citizens as they travel
> >around to such offending nations.
> Real protection starts with not 'offending' other groups in the first
> place by imperial and neo-imperial projections of power. The USA
> has killed literally millions of individuals by projections of
> imperial-terror since WW2. The argument that imperial-terror is
> justified by resistance-terror is putting the cart before the horse!
Since WW2, the U.S. has responded to communist aggression.
Communism itself has resulted in more pain, misery, suffering and
deaths than any other ideology since the stone age. Its total body
count is well with nine digits.
But apologists for communism reverse the definitions of aggression and
defense to exculpate communists. Now, apologists of terrorism do the
same to rationalize, minimize, sanitize terrorism.
> >> The second form is 'resistance-terror'. In this case, it is the
> >> victims of imperial terror who choose to be passive victims no longer,
> >> and resist the imperial aggressor with whatever tools are at hand.
> >> Imperialists tend to over-reach when the intended victims are literate
> >> people and have more organizational skill than the illiterate savages-
> >> the Imperial contests of the Great Powers during WW1 shows the folly
> >> of imperial campaigns against literate victims who thereby gain access
> >> to knowledge - to the strategic and tactical technologies that may
> >> seriously damage their enemies. In the case of 9-11, US flying
> >> schools.
> >
> >This dev poster sympathizes with Third World nations that like to
> >kidnap foreigners within their jurisdiction, seize (nationalize) their
> >property and give refuge to terrorist organizations that attack
> >citizens of other nations.
> I neither sympathize with the ideologues of imperial-terror nor with
> the ideologues of resistance-terror.
He regards terrorist attacks and responses to terrorism as equivalent.
> I am just pointing out that the empirical fact that the terror the West loves
> to hate is a product of the imperial-terror it either participates in or is
> acquiescent about.
There is nothing emperical about this observation. It's the product of
the left wing outlook that justifies aggression and penalizes defense.
> >> Palestinian suicide bombings and 9-11 are examples of
> >> resistance-terror against the imperialist Zionist state of Israel and
> >> the USA.
> >
> >This guy sympathizes with terrorists to destroy Israel, to replace a
> >government that recognizes rights with a dictatorship that recognizes
> >no rights.
> A Zionist state of Israel does not included the citizens of the
> occupied territories in its political democracy.
Terrorists consider all of Israel as occupied territory, even when
Palestinians within Israeli borders excerise all rights of Israeli
citizenship.
> It has toyed with the idea of ethnic cleaning the rest of the Arab
> population, so that they never threaten the Jewish majority.
No. The only ones toying with the idea of ethnic cleansing are the
Arabs who want to kill Jews. Their terrorist attacks are means to that
end. They kill Israeli soldiers, civilians, busloads of children.
> Gaza looks likely to be Sharon's exclusion zone as the imperial-terrorist
> cleansing of the West bank continues.
No. If anything, Israel has been too tolerant of a Palestinian
Authority that allows the West Bank to serve as staging areas for
terrorist attacks against Israel.
> >> Don't get into the question -is it justified? Moralizing on
> >> the issue is just propaganda for one side or the other.
> >
> >There is no doubt that this dev character believes that Palestinian
> >terrorists are justified, including strapping dynamite to their own
> >children to blow up Israeli children.
> You cannot end the cycle of violence by taking sides,...
This is a pacifist argument whereby aggressors and defenders are
portrayed as equivalent.
> ...you can end it only if you understand its cause - imperial-terror and
> deal with it.
This is the pacifist conclusion that one must appease aggressors in
order to get peace.
> Holding up the bodies of Jewish babies for the world to see, is just
> so much context destroying propaganda.
He has no problems with Arabs killing Jewish babies. "Dev" has no
problem with strapping dynamite on Arab children to kill Israelis. He
considers children as legitimate means and targets of aggressors.
> Why are they dying other than in the context of just another vicious European
> colonial invasion of Palestine - another re-run of imperial-terror with the
> added problem for the Zionist invaders that this time they picked on
> 'literate people' and they have been a tougher nut to crack?
He uses Marxist analysis to justify terrorism.
> >> Having thus defined it, we now know how to objectively free ourselves
> >> from the threat of terrorism .
> >>
> >> Simple really, just stop supporting imperialist wars or those nations
> >> who do.
> >
> >He believes that one can gain safety by sucking up to terrorists.
> No I believe that you are underestimating the power of
> resistance-terrorism and over-estimating the power of the
> imperial-terror to win a war against literate peoples.
He is saying that terrorists are so powerful that we had better get
down on our knees and suck up to them. Otherwise they would get mad
and really get rough.
> The west has two options deal directly with the problem of imperial-terror
> and pull the USA and Israel into line, or go all the way with GW Bush into
> WW3.
Works for me.
> >> Bring the Australian troops home now, and boycott the goods of the
> >> Imperialist Israel /USA to reinforce their international isolation in
> >> the UN.
> >
> >Perhaps the UN can move to Australia.
> Europe would be a better location-...
As long as the UN is out of the US.
> ...Australia is acting like a US puppet.
From the leftist perspective, for a nation not to be a US puppet would
be for it to addopt a dictatorship and support international
terrorism, to become an enemy of the United States.
But for the US, Australia would not have any kind of democracy. In
WW2, Australia would succumb to Japanese aggression. During the Cold
War, Australia would end up with a communist dictatorship.
This is the root of dev's resentment against the US. He wants
dictatorship and hates the US for preventing Australia from having
one.
> >> After their economies collapse, the realists in Israel and the USA
> >> will have the political leverage to bring their imperialist ideologues
> >> into line and withdraw from lands where they are unwelcome.
> >
> >Yes. They can lay down and die.
> What problem do you have with peaceful coexistence?
The sort of peaceful coexistance offered where terrorists gt to attack
whenever they want to and defenders do nothing.
> >> Only then will we have an end to terrorism -peace by draw -game, set
> >> and match over!
> >
> >He believes he can find safety by allowing terrorists to dictate
> >Australian policy.
> Either equal rights or their own state- then they would not care a fig
> about Australian policy. What is it about democracy that you have
> a problem with or does plutocracy and imperial-terror grease your
> palm? Waiting for the privatization of Iraqi oil assets?
Terrorists do not offer any kind of democracy or any kind of rights.
When terrorists win, the government itself becomes an instrument of
terror, which is what this dev character wants.
dev
Free voluntary exchanges are fine where each group gets' equal status'
for participation in a meritocracy and the exchange does not damage
the national interest. Exchanges under colonial or imperial rule are
not between parties of equal status. For example- the political
classifications that applied to American, Australian and South African
blacks under the old racist system.
>
>> Imperialism is an imposed will irrespective of the actions or desires of the
>> subjects of conquest- the assets then belong to the empire that seizes them
>> and holds them. The great imperial heists throughout history could thus be
>> justified on the grounds of 'protecting the missionaries'.
>
>People who prattle on about "imperialism" are generally advocates of,
>or apologists for, dictatorships. They believe in collective ownership
>of a nation's resources, "collective" meaning control by a dictator
>claiming to represent the collective. Thus anything not consistent
>with dictatorial control is called exploitation and/or imperialism.
I'm a small 'c' capitalist who believes in a relatively free but
responsible market economy but who also recognizes the danger the
world faces when ideologues turn market economies into vicious
capitalist plutocratic systems. Imperial adventure is not in the
interests of the masses but is often in the interests of the
plutocratic class. Every bomb dropped and every missile fired puts a
profit in their pocket. Most of the US leadership -the so call
'chicken hawks' make sure that they are the furthest from the front
lines of imperial-terror campaigns.
>
>> >Governments exist to protect the rights of their citizens. Governments
>> >also have the duty to extend the protection of its laws to foreign
>> >guests who come withing its jurisdiction. When certain governments
>> >fail to perform that duty, if instead they kidnap, rob and/or kill
>> >foreigners, give sanctuary to pirates and terrorist factions that
>> >attack citizens of other nations, then that government risks running
>> >afowl of those other nations. Imperialism is the policy of such other
>> >nations to protect the rights of their own citizens as they travel
>> >around to such offending nations.
>
>> Real protection starts with not 'offending' other groups in the first
>> place by imperial and neo-imperial projections of power. The USA
>> has killed literally millions of individuals by projections of
>> imperial-terror since WW2. The argument that imperial-terror is
>> justified by resistance-terror is putting the cart before the horse!
>
>Since WW2, the U.S. has responded to communist aggression.
>Communism itself has resulted in more pain, misery, suffering and
>deaths than any other ideology since the stone age. Its total body
>count is well with nine digits.
>But apologists for communism reverse the definitions of aggression and
>defense to exculpate communists. Now, apologists of terrorism do the
>same to rationalize, minimize, sanitize terrorism.
The US plutocracy responds to nationalist movements seeking de
colonization by a vicious war for profit and ideological dominance
-the Vietnam war under the ideological pretext of protection the world
from communism was just that. Look at the current US position in the
UN and judge for yourself- credibility zero.
>
>> >> The second form is 'resistance-terror'. In this case, it is the
>> >> victims of imperial terror who choose to be passive victims no longer,
>> >> and resist the imperial aggressor with whatever tools are at hand.
>> >> Imperialists tend to over-reach when the intended victims are literate
>> >> people and have more organizational skill than the illiterate savages-
>> >> the Imperial contests of the Great Powers during WW1 shows the folly
>> >> of imperial campaigns against literate victims who thereby gain access
>> >> to knowledge - to the strategic and tactical technologies that may
>> >> seriously damage their enemies. In the case of 9-11, US flying
>> >> schools.
>> >
>> >This dev poster sympathizes with Third World nations that like to
>> >kidnap foreigners within their jurisdiction, seize (nationalize) their
>> >property and give refuge to terrorist organizations that attack
>> >citizens of other nations.
>> I neither sympathize with the ideologues of imperial-terror nor with
>> the ideologues of resistance-terror.
>
>He regards terrorist attacks and responses to terrorism as equivalent.
If you genuinely want peace then you have to deal with causes. Dealing
with the issue with ideological rants and throwing bombs at enemies is
hardly a method of promoting peaceful co-existance.
>
>> I am just pointing out that the empirical fact that the terror the West loves
>> to hate is a product of the imperial-terror it either participates in or is
>> acquiescent about.
>
>There is nothing emperical about this observation. It's the product of
>the left wing outlook that justifies aggression and penalizes defense.
I'm in the center not the right or left but you must be judging me
from the vantage point of the plutocratic supremists- the ultra ultra
right.
>
>> >> Palestinian suicide bombings and 9-11 are examples of
>> >> resistance-terror against the imperialist Zionist state of Israel and
>> >> the USA.
>> >
>> >This guy sympathizes with terrorists to destroy Israel, to replace a
>> >government that recognizes rights with a dictatorship that recognizes
>> >no rights.
>
>> A Zionist state of Israel does not included the citizens of the
>> occupied territories in its political democracy.
>
>Terrorists consider all of Israel as occupied territory, even when
>Palestinians within Israeli borders excerise all rights of Israeli
>citizenship.
When they were driven out in 1948 with artillery and terrorist attacks
by Zionist terror groups, some would think that, but the vast majority
would accept a Jewish state but not Greater Israel or a continuous
occupation that is attempting to evict them by stealth with oppressive
policies of discrimination and violence. The Palestinians are staying
put so you better think of something else.
>
>> It has toyed with the idea of ethnic cleaning the rest of the Arab
>> population, so that they never threaten the Jewish majority.
>
>No. The only ones toying with the idea of ethnic cleansing are the
>Arabs who want to kill Jews. Their terrorist attacks are means to that
>end. They kill Israeli soldiers, civilians, busloads of children.
The Israelis call it 'transfer' but the world knows it by the name of
'ethnic cleansing'.
>
>> Gaza looks likely to be Sharon's exclusion zone as the imperial-terrorist
>> cleansing of the West bank continues.
>
>No. If anything, Israel has been too tolerant of a Palestinian
>Authority that allows the West Bank to serve as staging areas for
>terrorist attacks against Israel.
It is US imperialist-terror that has created this problem. If the
world community wants to designate land for the Jews then they either
better designate land for the Islamic population as well. The
colonial situation is brought about by the quest by US plutocracy for
world domination and for that they need to create conflicts that serve
as a pretext for intervention. If the Jews can be a special case and
awarded privileges denied other groups, so too can plutocrats be a
special case and have privileges denied to the common masses. For the
plutocrats atrocities in Palestine are a test case for atrocities
everywhere. Didn't you learn anything from the Waco slaughter?
>
>> >> Don't get into the question -is it justified? Moralizing on
>> >> the issue is just propaganda for one side or the other.
>> >
>> >There is no doubt that this dev character believes that Palestinian
>> >terrorists are justified, including strapping dynamite to their own
>> >children to blow up Israeli children.
>
>> You cannot end the cycle of violence by taking sides,...
>
>This is a pacifist argument whereby aggressors and defenders are
>portrayed as equivalent.
For you 'peace' exists when all the 'untermenchen' are either dead or
in chains and servitude. Has the good ol USA really renounced slavery?
>
>> ...you can end it only if you understand its cause - imperial-terror and
>> deal with it.
>
>This is the pacifist conclusion that one must appease aggressors in
>order to get peace.
What came first -imperial-terror or 'resistance-terror'? Clue- Causes
always precede their effects.
>
>> Holding up the bodies of Jewish babies for the world to see, is just
>> so much context destroying propaganda.
>
>He has no problems with Arabs killing Jewish babies. "Dev" has no
>problem with strapping dynamite on Arab children to kill Israelis. He
>considers children as legitimate means and targets of aggressors.
Emotive propaganda for the Israeli babies or the Palestinian babies
does not solve the problem of imperial-terror.
>
>> Why are they dying other than in the context of just another vicious European
>> colonial invasion of Palestine - another re-run of imperial-terror with the
>> added problem for the Zionist invaders that this time they picked on
>> 'literate people' and they have been a tougher nut to crack?
>
>He uses Marxist analysis to justify terrorism.
This isn't anything to do with Marxism, it is just history and the
observation of the facts- free of all the ideologue moralism that is
bandied about to obscure them.
The US has a problem with its political system- namely plutocracy. It
is a system of successful subversion of the democratic will via the US
presidential veto and capitalist control of information. No diversity
of opinion brings a type of plutocratic cheer squad to the political
arena not a balanced responsible democracy. The only president
electable under information vetting is one who will maintain
imperial-terror in the perceived interests of the plutocratic system.
>
>
>> >> After their economies collapse, the realists in Israel and the USA
>> >> will have the political leverage to bring their imperialist ideologues
>> >> into line and withdraw from lands where they are unwelcome.
>> >
>> >Yes. They can lay down and die.
>> What problem do you have with peaceful coexistence?
>
>The sort of peaceful coexistance offered where terrorists gt to attack
>whenever they want to and defenders do nothing.
Remove imperial-terror and resistance-terrorism will disappear. Just
like an illness really. Remove the cause and the symptoms go away.
>
>> >> Only then will we have an end to terrorism -peace by draw -game, set
>> >> and match over!
>> >
>> >He believes he can find safety by allowing terrorists to dictate
>> >Australian policy.
>> Either equal rights or their own state- then they would not care a fig
>> about Australian policy. What is it about democracy that you have
>> a problem with or does plutocracy and imperial-terror grease your
>> palm? Waiting for the privatization of Iraqi oil assets?
>
>Terrorists do not offer any kind of democracy or any kind of rights.
>When terrorists win, the government itself becomes an instrument of
>terror, which is what this dev character wants.
Not true. Imperial-terror kills both Americans and Australians.
Perhaps democracy in the USA is just what the doctor ordered to
eliminate their social pathology of wealth and arrogance. Maybe
terrorism is like a pain in the tooth, it tells you that somethings is
wrong but nothing about what has caused it. The world had two
conpetitive pariah states- the USSR and the USA.
Now it has only one.
Oh how slowly we evolve from ignorance to understanding!
Dev Carter
Jim Austin
This statement compounds error upon error in an effort to distort
reality
beyond recognition.
He talks about "colonial or imperial rule" and then provides as
examples, American, Austrailian and South African which involved
domestic tryanny, not "colonial or imperial rule."
I would like to report that actual colonial rule was always
enlightened and fair toward colonial subjects. It wasn't. However, the
results of colonial rule was population explosions as medical care
became available, and the colonials got some taste of rule of law.
Concerns about colonials' inability to create decent society for
themselves have proven justified over and over again. Their
liberations has resulted in dictatorship, tyranny, terror, famine,
massive deaths.
>>> Imperialism is an imposed will irrespective of the actions or
desires of
>>> the subjects of conquest- the assets then belong to the empire
that seizes
>>> them and holds them. The great imperial heists throughout history
could
>>> thus be justified on the grounds of 'protecting the missionaries'.
>>
>>People who prattle on about "imperialism" are generally advocates
of,
>>or apologists for, dictatorships. They believe in collective
ownership
>>of a nation's resources, "collective" meaning control by a dictator
>>claiming to represent the collective. Thus anything not consistent
>>with dictatorial control is called exploitation and/or imperialism.
>I'm a small 'c' capitalist who believes in a relatively free but
>responsible market economy but who also recognizes the danger the
>world faces when ideologues turn market economies into vicious
>capitalist plutocratic systems.
This means Dev Carter is not a capitalist at all, that he harbors
resentment
towards those who succeed under capitalism.
Capitalism involves protection of property rights. Leftist ideologues
oppose property rights. They believe that property rights is
exploitation per se. They believe that by all rights, capitalists
should be forcefully deprived of their property, and from that
perspective, any policy short of such deprivation is proof that
society is ruled by property owners.
>Imperial adventure is not in the interests of the masses but is often
>in the interests of the plutocratic class.
Imperial adventure is about protection of citizens traveling abroad
into areas where their rights are not recognized. America's imperial
adventure began under John Adams who sent the fledgling U.S. Navy to
excort U.S. commercial shipping that was harrassed by the French.
It continued under Jefferson when he sent the Marines to North Africa
to deal with pirates operating from North African countries. It
further continued when Benjamin Harrison sent the Navy to Japan
because of reports of Japanese mistreatment of shipwrecked U.S.
sailors of commercial vessles who wash up on the shores of Japan.
>Every bomb dropped and every missile fired puts a profit in their
pocket.
This is the usual pacifist prattle about war being caused by arms
manufacturers.
>Most of the US leadership -the so call 'chicken hawks' make sure that
they
>are the furthest from the front lines of imperial-terror campaigns.
This would include Wilson, FDR, Clinton.
>colonization by a vicious war for profit and ideological dominance...
Nationalism is resentment of foreigners. Nationalism is exemplified by
such organization as the Nazi party and the Ku Klux Klan.
>...-the Vietnam war under the ideological pretext of protection the
world
>from communism was just that.
It was just that. It was an attempt to keep a country from being ruled
by a communist dictatorship.
>Look at the current US position in the UN and judge for yourself-
>credibility zero.
That would be the organization where most of its members are
dictatorships, where the UN Human Rights commission is chaired by
Lybia, a country Carter would consider a paragon of human rights, at
least the sort of human rights that Carter belives in.
That means appeasing terrorists, letting them dictate U.S. policy.
>Dealing with the issue with ideological rants...
That means principles upholding human rights.
>and throwing bombs at enemies...
He would have us allow enemies to strike with impunity, without
opposition, resistance or retaliation.
>...is hardly a method of promoting peaceful co-existance.
I don't want to co-exist with somebody trying to kill me.
>>
>>> I am just pointing out that the empirical fact that the terror the
West
>>> loves to hate is a product of the imperial-terror it either
participates in
>>> or is acquiescent about.
>>
>>There is nothing emperical about this observation. It's the product
of
>>the left wing outlook that justifies aggression and penalizes
defense.
>I'm in the center not the right or left but you must be judging me
>from the vantage point of the plutocratic supremists- the ultra ultra
>right.
That statement puts Carter on the extreme left that regards private
property as plutocratic per se.
>>> >> Palestinian suicide bombings and 9-11 are examples of
>>> >> resistance-terror against the imperialist Zionist state of
Israel and
>>> >> the USA.
>>> >
>>> >This guy sympathizes with terrorists to destroy Israel, to
replace a
>>> >government that recognizes rights with a dictatorship that
recognizes
>>> >no rights.
>>> A Zionist state of Israel does not included the citizens of the
>>> occupied territories in its political democracy.
>>
>>Terrorists consider all of Israel as occupied territory, even when
>>Palestinians within Israeli borders excerise all rights of Israeli
>>citizenship.
>When they were driven out in 1948 with artillery and terrorist
attacks
>by Zionist terror groups,...
This would be after Arabs started their attack on Israel.
>...some would think that, but the vast majority
>would accept a Jewish state but not Greater Israel or a continuous
>occupation that is attempting to evict them by stealth with
oppressive
>policies of discrimination and violence. The Palestinians are staying
>put so you better think of something else.
This means that Palestinians will continue to try to destroy Israel.
>>> It has toyed with the idea of ethnic cleaning the rest of the Arab
>>> population, so that they never threaten the Jewish majority.
>>
>>No. The only ones toying with the idea of ethnic cleansing are the
>>Arabs who want to kill Jews. Their terrorist attacks are means to
that
>>end. They kill Israeli soldiers, civilians, busloads of children.
>The Israelis call it 'transfer' but the world knows it by the name of
>'ethnic cleansing'.
This would be Arab efforts to kill Jews.
>>> Gaza looks likely to be Sharon's exclusion zone as the
imperial-terrorist
>>> cleansing of the West bank continues.
>>
>>No. If anything, Israel has been too tolerant of a Palestinian
>>Authority that allows the West Bank to serve as staging areas for
>>terrorist attacks against Israel.
>It is US imperialist-terror that has created this problem.
No. Arab terrorists created the problem.
>If the world community wants to designate land for the Jews then
>they either better designate land for the Islamic population as
>well.
I don't care what the world community, most of whom live under
dictatorships, designates.
>The colonial situation is brought about by the quest by US plutocracy
>for world domination...
This is how leftists characterize U.S. attempts to protect its
citizens from other governments. Leftists believe that other
governments should have the right to detain U.S. citizens, torture
them, kill them, seize their property, support terrorist attacks on
U.S. citizens en route on planes or boats.
>...and for that they need to create conflicts that serve as a pretext
>for intervention.
Leftists consider protecting rights as a pretext that justifies
terrorism.
>If the Jews can be a special case and awarded privileges denied other
>groups,
This would be their right to exist.
>...so too can plutocrats be a special case and have privileges denied
>to the common masses.
This would the right of common masses to seize property of the rich,
that leftists believe in.
>For the plutocrats atrocities in Palestine are a test case for
>atrocities everywhere.
Leftists consider responding to terrorist attacks as atrocities.
>Didn't you learn anything from the Waco slaughter?
Obscure reference.
>>> >> Don't get into the question -is it justified? Moralizing on
>>> >> the issue is just propaganda for one side or the other.
>>> >
>>> >There is no doubt that this dev character believes that
Palestinian
>>> >terrorists are justified, including strapping dynamite to their
own
>>> >children to blow up Israeli children.
>>> You cannot end the cycle of violence by taking sides,...
>>
>>This is a pacifist argument whereby aggressors and defenders are
>>portrayed as equivalent.
>For you 'peace' exists when all the 'untermenchen' are either dead or
>in chains and servitude.
Peace would exist when all terrorists are dead or imprisoned. But
Carter is concerned mainly with protecting terrorists.
>Has the good ol USA really renounced slavery?
It is leftists who have yet to renounce slavery, considering their
staunch support of dictatorships that enslave their citizens.
>>> ...you can end it only if you understand its cause -
imperial-terror and
>>> deal with it.
>>
>>This is the pacifist conclusion that one must appease aggressors in
>>order to get peace.
>What came first -imperial-terror or 'resistance-terror'?
Question assumes facts not in evidence.
>Clue- Causes always precede their effects.
Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc.
>>> Holding up the bodies of Jewish babies for the world to see, is
just
>>> so much context destroying propaganda.
>>
>>He has no problems with Arabs killing Jewish babies. "Dev" has no
>>problem with strapping dynamite on Arab children to kill Israelis.
He
>>considers children as legitimate means and targets of aggressors.
>Emotive propaganda for the Israeli babies or the Palestinian babies
>does not solve the problem of imperial-terror.
That's because "imperial-terror" is not the problem. Aggressors who
use babies to kill babies are the problem.
>>> Why are they dying other than in the context of just another
vicious
>>> European colonial invasion of Palestine - another re-run of
imperial-terror
>>> with the added problem for the Zionist invaders that this time
they picked
>>> on 'literate people' and they have been a tougher nut to crack?
>>
>>He uses Marxist analysis to justify terrorism.
>This isn't anything to do with Marxism, it is just history and the
>observation of the facts- free of all the ideologue moralism that is
>bandied about to obscure them.
I have shown otherwise. This whole thing about imperialism is recycled
Marxism. It will take more than picking and choosing facts taken out
of context, strung together to create a distorted picture to support
his analysis.
By which Carter means where the government does not seize all wealth.
>It is a system of successful subversion of the democratic will...
This would mean the supposed desire of the masses to seize the wealth
of the rich.
>...via the US presidential veto and capitalist control of
information.
This would be the refusal of the media to advocate a socialist
dictatorship.
>No diversity of opinion brings a type of plutocratic cheer squad
>to the political arena not a balanced responsible democracy.
Actually, there is a diversity of opinion, the very diversity that
liberals complain of when they seek rules to drive conservative talk
show programs off the air.
However, Carter is complaining of a lack of media support for a
socialist dictatorship.
>The only president electable under information vetting is one who
will
>maintain imperial-terror in the perceived interests of the
plutocratic
>system.
Leftists consider themselves the true representatives of the will of
the masses, regardless of how the masses express themselves at the
ballot box. They decide that the masses are deluded, and thus feel
justified in disregarding people's actual beliefs.
>>> >> After their economies collapse, the realists in Israel and the
USA
>>> >> will have the political leverage to bring their imperialist
ideologues
>>> >> into line and withdraw from lands where they are unwelcome.
>>> >
>>> >Yes. They can lay down and die.
>>> What problem do you have with peaceful coexistence?
>>
>>The sort of peaceful coexistance offered where terrorists gt to
attack
>>whenever they want to and defenders do nothing.
>Remove imperial-terror and resistance-terrorism will disappear. Just
>like an illness really. Remove the cause and the symptoms go away.
No. Remove resistance to terrorism and the terrorist body count will
only increase exponentially.
>>> >> Only then will we have an end to terrorism -peace by draw
-game, set
>>> >> and match over!
>>> >
>>> >He believes he can find safety by allowing terrorists to dictate
>>> >Australian policy.
>>> Either equal rights or their own state- then they would not care a
fig
>>> about Australian policy. What is it about democracy that you have
>>> a problem with or does plutocracy and imperial-terror grease your
>>> palm? Waiting for the privatization of Iraqi oil assets?
>>
>>Terrorists do not offer any kind of democracy or any kind of rights.
>>When terrorists win, the government itself becomes an instrument of
>>terror, which is what this dev character wants.
>Not true. Imperial-terror kills both Americans and Australians.
No. It's terrorists who kill Americans and Australians, a fact
condoned by leftists who keep trying to exonerate terrorists.
>Perhaps democracy in the USA is just what the doctor ordered to
>eliminate their social pathology of wealth and arrogance.
This would mean eliminating the last vestiges of capitalism and
establish the sort of democracy exemplified by the Democratic Republic
of Vietnam or the Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany during
the Cold War), or even the People's Republic of China.
>Maybe terrorism is like a pain in the tooth, it tells you that
>somethings is wrong but nothing about what has caused it.
He would get rid of the pain by killing the person suffering from the
pain.
>The world had two conpetitive pariah states- the USSR and the USA.
Carter undoubtedly sided with the former. He considered the US
"pariah" because it opposed the USSR.
>Now it has only one.
He misses the other. He hasn't forgiven the U.S. for opposing the sort
of democracy offered by the other.
>Oh how slowly we evolve from ignorance to understanding!
He wants us to evolve in the other direction.
Jim Austin
This statement compounds error upon error in an effort to distort
reality
beyond recognition.
He talks about "colonial or imperial rule" and then provides as
examples, American, Austrailian and South African which involved
domestic tryanny, not "colonial or imperial rule."
I would like to report that actual colonial rule was always
enlightened and fair toward colonial subjects. It wasn't. However, the
results of colonial rule was population explosions as medical care
became available, and the colonials got some taste of rule of law.
Concerns about colonials' inability to create decent society for
themselves have proven justified over and over again. Their
liberations has resulted in dictatorship, tyranny, terror, famine,
massive deaths.
>>> Imperialism is an imposed will irrespective of the actions or
desires of
>>> the subjects of conquest- the assets then belong to the empire
that seizes
>>> them and holds them. The great imperial heists throughout history
could
>>> thus be justified on the grounds of 'protecting the missionaries'.
>>
>>People who prattle on about "imperialism" are generally advocates
of,
>>or apologists for, dictatorships. They believe in collective
ownership
>>of a nation's resources, "collective" meaning control by a dictator
>>claiming to represent the collective. Thus anything not consistent
>>with dictatorial control is called exploitation and/or imperialism.
>I'm a small 'c' capitalist who believes in a relatively free but
>responsible market economy but who also recognizes the danger the
>world faces when ideologues turn market economies into vicious
>capitalist plutocratic systems.
This means Dev Carter is not a capitalist at all, that he harbors
resentment
towards those who succeed under capitalism.
Capitalism involves protection of property rights. Leftist ideologues
oppose property rights. They believe that property rights is
exploitation per se. They believe that by all rights, capitalists
should be forcefully deprived of their property, and from that
perspective, any policy short of such deprivation is proof that
society is ruled by property owners.
>Imperial adventure is not in the interests of the masses but is often
>in the interests of the plutocratic class.
Imperial adventure is about protection of citizens traveling abroad
into areas where their rights are not recognized. America's imperial
adventure began under John Adams who sent the fledgling U.S. Navy to
excort U.S. commercial shipping that was harrassed by the French.
It continued under Jefferson when he sent the Marines to North Africa
to deal with pirates operating from North African countries. It
further continued when Benjamin Harrison sent the Navy to Japan
because of reports of Japanese mistreatment of shipwrecked U.S.
sailors of commercial vessles who wash up on the shores of Japan.
>Every bomb dropped and every missile fired puts a profit in their
pocket.
This is the usual pacifist prattle about war being caused by arms
manufacturers.
>Most of the US leadership -the so call 'chicken hawks' make sure that
they
>are the furthest from the front lines of imperial-terror campaigns.
This would include Wilson, FDR, Clinton.
>>
>colonization by a vicious war for profit and ideological dominance...
Nationalism is resentment of foreigners. Nationalism is exemplified by
such organization as the Nazi party and the Ku Klux Klan.
>...-the Vietnam war under the ideological pretext of protection the
world
>from communism was just that.
It was just that. It was an attempt to keep a country from being ruled
by a communist dictatorship.
>Look at the current US position in the UN and judge for yourself-
>credibility zero.
That would be the organization where most of its members are
dictatorships, where the UN Human Rights commission is chaired by
Lybia, a country Carter would consider a paragon of human rights, at
least the sort of human rights that Carter belives in.
>>
That means appeasing terrorists, letting them dictate U.S. policy.
>Dealing with the issue with ideological rants...
That means principles upholding human rights.
>and throwing bombs at enemies...
He would have us allow enemies to strike with impunity, without
opposition, resistance or retaliation.
>...is hardly a method of promoting peaceful co-existance.
I don't want to co-exist with somebody trying to kill me.
>>
>>> I am just pointing out that the empirical fact that the terror the
West
>>> loves to hate is a product of the imperial-terror it either
participates in
>>> or is acquiescent about.
>>
>>There is nothing emperical about this observation. It's the product
of
>>the left wing outlook that justifies aggression and penalizes
defense.
>I'm in the center not the right or left but you must be judging me
>from the vantage point of the plutocratic supremists- the ultra ultra
>right.
That statement puts Carter on the extreme left that regards private
property as plutocratic per se.
>>> >> Palestinian suicide bombings and 9-11 are examples of
>>> >> resistance-terror against the imperialist Zionist state of
Israel and
>>> >> the USA.
>>> >
>>> >This guy sympathizes with terrorists to destroy Israel, to
replace a
>>> >government that recognizes rights with a dictatorship that
recognizes
>>> >no rights.
>>> A Zionist state of Israel does not included the citizens of the
>>> occupied territories in its political democracy.
>>
>>Terrorists consider all of Israel as occupied territory, even when
>>Palestinians within Israeli borders excerise all rights of Israeli
>>citizenship.
>When they were driven out in 1948 with artillery and terrorist
attacks
>by Zionist terror groups,...
This would be after Arabs started their attack on Israel.
>...some would think that, but the vast majority
>would accept a Jewish state but not Greater Israel or a continuous
>occupation that is attempting to evict them by stealth with
oppressive
>policies of discrimination and violence. The Palestinians are staying
>put so you better think of something else.
This means that Palestinians will continue to try to destroy Israel.
>>> It has toyed with the idea of ethnic cleaning the rest of the Arab
>>> population, so that they never threaten the Jewish majority.
>>
>>No. The only ones toying with the idea of ethnic cleansing are the
>>Arabs who want to kill Jews. Their terrorist attacks are means to
that
>>end. They kill Israeli soldiers, civilians, busloads of children.
>The Israelis call it 'transfer' but the world knows it by the name of
>'ethnic cleansing'.
This would be Arab efforts to kill Jews.
>>> Gaza looks likely to be Sharon's exclusion zone as the
imperial-terrorist
>>> cleansing of the West bank continues.
>>
>>No. If anything, Israel has been too tolerant of a Palestinian
>>Authority that allows the West Bank to serve as staging areas for
>>terrorist attacks against Israel.
>It is US imperialist-terror that has created this problem.
No. Arab terrorists created the problem.
>If the world community wants to designate land for the Jews then
>they either better designate land for the Islamic population as
>well.
I don't care what the world community, most of whom live under
dictatorships, designates.
>The colonial situation is brought about by the quest by US plutocracy
>for world domination...
This is how leftists characterize U.S. attempts to protect its
citizens from other governments. Leftists believe that other
governments should have the right to detain U.S. citizens, torture
them, kill them, seize their property, support terrorist attacks on
U.S. citizens en route on planes or boats.
>...and for that they need to create conflicts that serve as a pretext
>for intervention.
Leftists consider protecting rights as a pretext that justifies
terrorism.
>If the Jews can be a special case and awarded privileges denied other
>groups,
This would be their right to exist.
>...so too can plutocrats be a special case and have privileges denied
>to the common masses.
This would the right of common masses to seize property of the rich,
that leftists believe in.
>For the plutocrats atrocities in Palestine are a test case for
>atrocities everywhere.
Leftists consider responding to terrorist attacks as atrocities.
>Didn't you learn anything from the Waco slaughter?
Obscure reference.
>>> >> Don't get into the question -is it justified? Moralizing on
>>> >> the issue is just propaganda for one side or the other.
>>> >
>>> >There is no doubt that this dev character believes that
Palestinian
>>> >terrorists are justified, including strapping dynamite to their
own
>>> >children to blow up Israeli children.
>>> You cannot end the cycle of violence by taking sides,...
>>
>>This is a pacifist argument whereby aggressors and defenders are
>>portrayed as equivalent.
>For you 'peace' exists when all the 'untermenchen' are either dead or
>in chains and servitude.
Peace would exist when all terrorists are dead or imprisoned. But
Carter is concerned mainly with protecting terrorists.
>Has the good ol USA really renounced slavery?
It is leftists who have yet to renounce slavery, considering their
staunch support of dictatorships that enslave their citizens.
>>> ...you can end it only if you understand its cause -
imperial-terror and
>>> deal with it.
>>
>>This is the pacifist conclusion that one must appease aggressors in
>>order to get peace.
>What came first -imperial-terror or 'resistance-terror'?
Question assumes facts not in evidence.
>Clue- Causes always precede their effects.
Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc.
>>> Holding up the bodies of Jewish babies for the world to see, is
just
>>> so much context destroying propaganda.
>>
>>He has no problems with Arabs killing Jewish babies. "Dev" has no
>>problem with strapping dynamite on Arab children to kill Israelis.
He
>>considers children as legitimate means and targets of aggressors.
>Emotive propaganda for the Israeli babies or the Palestinian babies
>does not solve the problem of imperial-terror.
That's because "imperial-terror" is not the problem. Aggressors who
use babies to kill babies are the problem.
>>> Why are they dying other than in the context of just another
vicious
>>> European colonial invasion of Palestine - another re-run of
imperial-terror
>>> with the added problem for the Zionist invaders that this time
they picked
>>> on 'literate people' and they have been a tougher nut to crack?
>>
>>He uses Marxist analysis to justify terrorism.
>This isn't anything to do with Marxism, it is just history and the
>observation of the facts- free of all the ideologue moralism that is
>bandied about to obscure them.
I have shown otherwise. This whole thing about imperialism is recycled
Marxism. It will take more than picking and choosing facts taken out
of context, strung together to create a distorted picture to support
his analysis.
>>> >> Having thus defined it, we now know how to objectively free
By which Carter means where the government does not seize all wealth.
>It is a system of successful subversion of the democratic will...
This would mean the supposed desire of the masses to seize the wealth
of the rich.
>...via the US presidential veto and capitalist control of
information.
This would be the refusal of the media to advocate a socialist
dictatorship.
>No diversity of opinion brings a type of plutocratic cheer squad
>to the political arena not a balanced responsible democracy.
Actually, there is a diversity of opinion, the very diversity that
liberals complain of when they seek rules to drive conservative talk
show programs off the air.
However, Carter is complaining of a lack of media support for a
socialist dictatorship.
>The only president electable under information vetting is one who
will
>maintain imperial-terror in the perceived interests of the
plutocratic
>system.
Leftists consider themselves the true representatives of the will of
the masses, regardless of how the masses express themselves at the
ballot box. They decide that the masses are deluded, and thus feel
justified in disregarding people's actual beliefs.
>>> >> After their economies collapse, the realists in Israel and the
USA
>>> >> will have the political leverage to bring their imperialist
ideologues
>>> >> into line and withdraw from lands where they are unwelcome.
>>> >
>>> >Yes. They can lay down and die.
>>> What problem do you have with peaceful coexistence?
>>
>>The sort of peaceful coexistance offered where terrorists gt to
attack
>>whenever they want to and defenders do nothing.
>Remove imperial-terror and resistance-terrorism will disappear. Just
>like an illness really. Remove the cause and the symptoms go away.
No. Remove resistance to terrorism and the terrorist body count will
only increase exponentially.
>>> >> Only then will we have an end to terrorism -peace by draw
-game, set
>>> >> and match over!
>>> >
>>> >He believes he can find safety by allowing terrorists to dictate
>>> >Australian policy.
>>> Either equal rights or their own state- then they would not care a
fig
>>> about Australian policy. What is it about democracy that you have
>>> a problem with or does plutocracy and imperial-terror grease your
>>> palm? Waiting for the privatization of Iraqi oil assets?
>>
>>Terrorists do not offer any kind of democracy or any kind of rights.
>>When terrorists win, the government itself becomes an instrument of
>>terror, which is what this dev character wants.
>Not true. Imperial-terror kills both Americans and Australians.
No. It's terrorists who kill Americans and Australians, a fact
condoned by leftists who keep trying to exonerate terrorists.
>Perhaps democracy in the USA is just what the doctor ordered to
>eliminate their social pathology of wealth and arrogance.
This would mean eliminating the last vestiges of capitalism and
establish the sort of democracy exemplified by the Democratic Republic
of Vietnam or the Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany during
the Cold War), or even the People's Republic of China.
>Maybe terrorism is like a pain in the tooth, it tells you that
>somethings is wrong but nothing about what has caused it.
He would get rid of the pain by killing the person suffering from the
pain.
>The world had two conpetitive pariah states- the USSR and the USA.
Carter undoubtedly sided with the former. He considered the US
"pariah" because it opposed the USSR.
>Now it has only one.
He misses the other. He hasn't forgiven the U.S. for opposing the sort
of democracy offered by the other.
>Oh how slowly we evolve from ignorance to understanding!
He wants us to evolve in the other direction.
dev
There is nothing 'domestic' about Imperialism. The entire race of
Tasmanian aboriginees was wiped out- exterminated by its policies-
imperial terror that worked for the imperialists.
Aborigines were not even regarded as Australians until recent decades.
For the ultra-rightists of your persuasion capitalism can do no harm.
Australia was a colony, blacks that had no rights as citizens and were
objective speaking 'under colonial rule'.
>
>I would like to report that actual colonial rule was always
>enlightened and fair toward colonial subjects. It wasn't. However, the
>results of colonial rule was population explosions as medical care
>became available, and the colonials got some taste of rule of law.
>
>Concerns about colonials' inability to create decent society for
>themselves have proven justified over and over again. Their
>liberations has resulted in dictatorship, tyranny, terror, famine,
>massive deaths.
With the West playing the role of gun-runner to those regimes thought
favorable to their geopolitical designs there is little wonder. They
didn't turn their arrows and spears into modern weaponry now did they?
The limitations of an unfettered market economy with increasing
technological sophistication for destruction is obvious to all a few
individuals who have their plutocratic blinkers on.
Who is responsible for social responsibility in the fishing and
agricultural industries. Surely not those with the property rights?
Land degradation and species eradication is the legacy of a past with
unfettered rights.
Such resources are the right of all- including future generations, and
they need responsible administration. Such social intervention isn't
socialism- but social responsibility. Plutocrats looking, as usual,
for the fast buck, resist it.
>
>>Imperial adventure is not in the interests of the masses but is often
>>in the interests of the plutocratic class.
>
>Imperial adventure is about protection of citizens traveling abroad
>into areas where their rights are not recognized. America's imperial
>adventure began under John Adams who sent the fledgling U.S. Navy to
>excort U.S. commercial shipping that was harrassed by the French.
>
>It continued under Jefferson when he sent the Marines to North Africa
>to deal with pirates operating from North African countries. It
>further continued when Benjamin Harrison sent the Navy to Japan
>because of reports of Japanese mistreatment of shipwrecked U.S.
>sailors of commercial vessles who wash up on the shores of Japan.
You forgot to mention Cuba and the Spanish-American war. As usual
picking examples that suit your distortion of history and which avoid
mention of the history of US imperial adventures.
>
>>Every bomb dropped and every missile fired puts a profit in their
>pocket.
>
>This is the usual pacifist prattle about war being caused by arms
>manufacturers.
They are just part of the picture- the real benefactors are the
plutocrats and the policies they promote. Slavery, colonialism,
imperialism- all to increase and secure their wealth and position.
>
>>Most of the US leadership -the so call 'chicken hawks' make sure that
>they
>>are the furthest from the front lines of imperial-terror campaigns.
>
>This would include Wilson, FDR, Clinton.
You could enlist. There are some new vacancies for neo-Imperial
servants in Falujah, Iraq. You might get a mention someplace on a
plaque for the fallen heroes- while the plutocrats will get some
stocks & profits when the oil spoils of Iraq are privatized off by the
Chalabi puppet regime.
Rather to thwart independence from colonial rule. The US tried to take
up where the French left off, to rule through the remnants of the
French colonial system-but failed.
>
>>Look at the current US position in the UN and judge for yourself-
>>credibility zero.
>
>That would be the organization where most of its members are
>dictatorships, where the UN Human Rights commission is chaired by
>Lybia, a country Carter would consider a paragon of human rights, at
>least the sort of human rights that Carter belives in.
Give a plutocrat an opportunity to put his vote where his mouth is -
to walk the walk not just talk the talk, - and they run away.
Democracy is not on their agenda anytime soon, neo-imperialism and
democracy just don't mix.
If the kitchen is too hot for the cook, then the cook better get out
of the kitchen. What came first - imperial terror or
resistance-terror?
>
>>...is hardly a method of promoting peaceful co-existance.
>
>I don't want to co-exist with somebody trying to kill me.
Exactly the sentiments of the resistors of imperial-terror.
>
>>>
>>>> I am just pointing out that the empirical fact that the terror the
>West
>>>> loves to hate is a product of the imperial-terror it either
>participates in
>>>> or is acquiescent about.
>>>
>>>There is nothing emperical about this observation. It's the product
>of
>>>the left wing outlook that justifies aggression and penalizes
>defense.
>>I'm in the center not the right or left but you must be judging me
>>from the vantage point of the plutocratic supremists- the ultra ultra
>>right.
>
>That statement puts Carter on the extreme left that regards private
>property as plutocratic per se.
The moderate center! It's obvious that unfettered capitalism ends in
plutocracy as power and wealth consolidates in fewer and fewer hands.
It then becomes more imperialist to protect and extend its
appropriations since it has all the wealth it can extract from the
underclass of it own impoverished citizenry. We will soon see the
eradication of the US middle class as the are pushed by Job losses
into the poverty trap. Revolution by 2050?
>
>>>> >> Palestinian suicide bombings and 9-11 are examples of
>>>> >> resistance-terror against the imperialist Zionist state of
>Israel and
>>>> >> the USA.
>>>> >
>>>> >This guy sympathizes with terrorists to destroy Israel, to
>replace a
>>>> >government that recognizes rights with a dictatorship that
>recognizes
>>>> >no rights.
>>>> A Zionist state of Israel does not included the citizens of the
>>>> occupied territories in its political democracy.
>>>
>>>Terrorists consider all of Israel as occupied territory, even when
>>>Palestinians within Israeli borders excerise all rights of Israeli
>>>citizenship.
>>When they were driven out in 1948 with artillery and terrorist
>attacks
>>by Zionist terror groups,...
>
>This would be after Arabs started their attack on Israel.
Whose land is it?
>
>>...some would think that, but the vast majority
>>would accept a Jewish state but not Greater Israel or a continuous
>>occupation that is attempting to evict them by stealth with
>oppressive
>>policies of discrimination and violence. The Palestinians are staying
>>put so you better think of something else.
>
>This means that Palestinians will continue to try to destroy Israel.
Greater Israel.
>
>>>> It has toyed with the idea of ethnic cleaning the rest of the Arab
>>>> population, so that they never threaten the Jewish majority.
>>>
>>>No. The only ones toying with the idea of ethnic cleansing are the
>>>Arabs who want to kill Jews. Their terrorist attacks are means to
>that
>>>end. They kill Israeli soldiers, civilians, busloads of children.
>>The Israelis call it 'transfer' but the world knows it by the name of
>>'ethnic cleansing'.
>
>This would be Arab efforts to kill Jews.
Stop changing the subject.
>
>>>> Gaza looks likely to be Sharon's exclusion zone as the
>imperial-terrorist
>>>> cleansing of the West bank continues.
>>>
>>>No. If anything, Israel has been too tolerant of a Palestinian
>>>Authority that allows the West Bank to serve as staging areas for
>>>terrorist attacks against Israel.
>>It is US imperialist-terror that has created this problem.
>
>No. Arab terrorists created the problem.
Who came first - the imperialists or the resistance?
>
>>If the world community wants to designate land for the Jews then
>>they either better designate land for the Islamic population as
>>well.
>
>I don't care what the world community, most of whom live under
>dictatorships, designates.
In your view the world isn't fit to promote democracy - only your
vision of paradise under US plutocratic domination will do!
>
>>The colonial situation is brought about by the quest by US plutocracy
>>for world domination...
>
>This is how leftists characterize U.S. attempts to protect its
>citizens from other governments. Leftists believe that other
>governments should have the right to detain U.S. citizens, torture
>them, kill them, seize their property, support terrorist attacks on
>U.S. citizens en route on planes or boats.
>
>>...and for that they need to create conflicts that serve as a pretext
>>for intervention.
>
>Leftists consider protecting rights as a pretext that justifies
>terrorism.
Ultra-rightist talk about 'democracy' but never practice it. No wonder
so few US citizens bother to vote.
>
>>If the Jews can be a special case and awarded privileges denied other
>>groups,
>
>This would be their right to exist.
Even if they abandon democracy to do so and embrace religious fascism
and ethnic cleansing?
>
>>...so too can plutocrats be a special case and have privileges denied
>>to the common masses.
>
>This would the right of common masses to seize property of the rich,
>that leftists believe in.
Elimination of plutocracy indirectly protects the rights of the rich-
protects them from their own excesses and the inevitable revolutions
that follow upon them. Democratic market economies are the best
solution but these differ from the US model that is founded upon the
rigorous subversion of the democratic order.
>
>>For the plutocrats atrocities in Palestine are a test case for
>>atrocities everywhere.
>
>Leftists consider responding to terrorist attacks as atrocities.
>
>>Didn't you learn anything from the Waco slaughter?
>
>Obscure reference.
>
>>>> >> Don't get into the question -is it justified? Moralizing on
>>>> >> the issue is just propaganda for one side or the other.
>>>> >
>>>> >There is no doubt that this dev character believes that
>Palestinian
>>>> >terrorists are justified, including strapping dynamite to their
>own
>>>> >children to blow up Israeli children.
>>>> You cannot end the cycle of violence by taking sides,...
>>>
>>>This is a pacifist argument whereby aggressors and defenders are
>>>portrayed as equivalent.
>>For you 'peace' exists when all the 'untermenchen' are either dead or
>>in chains and servitude.
>
>Peace would exist when all terrorists are dead or imprisoned. But
>Carter is concerned mainly with protecting terrorists.
Or when everyone is dead? Apocalypse now-WMD might just give you what
you want if you really want to wipe out all those imperial terrorist
and resistance-terrorist. What is to become of uncommitted sitting on
the fence, do we get a vote?
>
>>Has the good ol USA really renounced slavery?
>
>It is leftists who have yet to renounce slavery, considering their
>staunch support of dictatorships that enslave their citizens.
Yanks have been supporting dictatorships for decades- can't you find
South America on a map?
>
>>>> ...you can end it only if you understand its cause -
>imperial-terror and
>>>> deal with it.
>>>
>>>This is the pacifist conclusion that one must appease aggressors in
>>>order to get peace.
>>What came first -imperial-terror or 'resistance-terror'?
>
>Question assumes facts not in evidence.
Truth hurts don't it!
>
>>Clue- Causes always precede their effects.
>
>Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc.
>
>>>> Holding up the bodies of Jewish babies for the world to see, is
>just
>>>> so much context destroying propaganda.
>>>
>>>He has no problems with Arabs killing Jewish babies. "Dev" has no
>>>problem with strapping dynamite on Arab children to kill Israelis.
>He
>>>considers children as legitimate means and targets of aggressors.
>>Emotive propaganda for the Israeli babies or the Palestinian babies
>>does not solve the problem of imperial-terror.
>
>That's because "imperial-terror" is not the problem. Aggressors who
>use babies to kill babies are the problem.
Only for imperial-terrorists who want world domination and total
power.
>
>>>> Why are they dying other than in the context of just another
>vicious
>>>> European colonial invasion of Palestine - another re-run of
>imperial-terror
>>>> with the added problem for the Zionist invaders that this time
>they picked
>>>> on 'literate people' and they have been a tougher nut to crack?
>>>
>>>He uses Marxist analysis to justify terrorism.
>>This isn't anything to do with Marxism, it is just history and the
>>observation of the facts- free of all the ideologue moralism that is
>>bandied about to obscure them.
>
>I have shown otherwise. This whole thing about imperialism is recycled
>Marxism. It will take more than picking and choosing facts taken out
>of context, strung together to create a distorted picture to support
>his analysis.
You have shown that you are basically a brain-washed rightist, with
your head in the sand.
Where it does not control the excesses of wealth- its corruption and
damaging influence.
>
>>It is a system of successful subversion of the democratic will...
>
>This would mean the supposed desire of the masses to seize the wealth
>of the rich.
Control the wealth in the national and international interest.
>
>>...via the US presidential veto and capitalist control of
>information.
>
>This would be the refusal of the media to advocate a socialist
>dictatorship.
>
>>No diversity of opinion brings a type of plutocratic cheer squad
>>to the political arena not a balanced responsible democracy.
>
>Actually, there is a diversity of opinion, the very diversity that
>liberals complain of when they seek rules to drive conservative talk
>show programs off the air.
Hate shows are not entertainment but ideological brain washing.
>
>However, Carter is complaining of a lack of media support for a
>socialist dictatorship.
An informed public is crucial for democracy. Under plutocracy the
funding for an independent media with balanced views is curtailed.
Hence a media that is little more than a cheer squad for plutocracy.
>
>>The only president electable under information vetting is one who
>will
>>maintain imperial-terror in the perceived interests of the
>plutocratic
>>system.
>
>Leftists consider themselves the true representatives of the will of
>the masses, regardless of how the masses express themselves at the
>ballot box. They decide that the masses are deluded, and thus feel
>justified in disregarding people's actual beliefs.
Actual brainwashing under plutocratic domination.
>
>>>> >> After their economies collapse, the realists in Israel and the
>USA
>>>> >> will have the political leverage to bring their imperialist
>ideologues
>>>> >> into line and withdraw from lands where they are unwelcome.
>>>> >
>>>> >Yes. They can lay down and die.
>>>> What problem do you have with peaceful coexistence?
>>>
>>>The sort of peaceful coexistance offered where terrorists gt to
>attack
>>>whenever they want to and defenders do nothing.
>>Remove imperial-terror and resistance-terrorism will disappear. Just
>>like an illness really. Remove the cause and the symptoms go away.
>
>No. Remove resistance to terrorism and the terrorist body count will
>only increase exponentially.
Yes -remove non-violent resistance to imperial-terror and the body
count certainly will go up!
>
>>>> >> Only then will we have an end to terrorism -peace by draw
>-game, set
>>>> >> and match over!
>>>> >
>>>> >He believes he can find safety by allowing terrorists to dictate
>>>> >Australian policy.
>>>> Either equal rights or their own state- then they would not care a
>fig
>>>> about Australian policy. What is it about democracy that you have
>>>> a problem with or does plutocracy and imperial-terror grease your
>>>> palm? Waiting for the privatization of Iraqi oil assets?
>>>
>>>Terrorists do not offer any kind of democracy or any kind of rights.
>>>When terrorists win, the government itself becomes an instrument of
>>>terror, which is what this dev character wants.
>>Not true. Imperial-terror kills both Americans and Australians.
>
>No. It's terrorists who kill Americans and Australians, a fact
>condoned by leftists who keep trying to exonerate terrorists.
No it is plutocracy and imperialism that start such conflicts.
Political problems need political solutions- not more wars for the
plutocrats!
>
>>Perhaps democracy in the USA is just what the doctor ordered to
>>eliminate their social pathology of wealth and arrogance.
>
>This would mean eliminating the last vestiges of capitalism and
>establish the sort of democracy exemplified by the Democratic Republic
>of Vietnam or the Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany during
>the Cold War), or even the People's Republic of China.
A balance of private interest and public interests is what is
obviously needed- except to the brainwashed propagandists for
plutocracy.
>
>>Maybe terrorism is like a pain in the tooth, it tells you that
>>somethings is wrong but nothing about what has caused it.
>
>He would get rid of the pain by killing the person suffering from the
>pain.
Doesn't follow.
>
>>The world had two conpetitive pariah states- the USSR and the USA.
>
>Carter undoubtedly sided with the former. He considered the US
>"pariah" because it opposed the USSR.
>
>>Now it has only one.
>
>He misses the other. He hasn't forgiven the U.S. for opposing the sort
>of democracy offered by the other.
The other and you were closer than you think!
>
>>Oh how slowly we evolve from ignorance to understanding!
>
>He wants us to evolve in the other direction.
A sensible/ rational direction.
Where can we send your enlistment papers. Don't be a chicken hawk- the
front line needs you- now!
dev
Jim Austin
I am unfamiliar with the specifics about Austrailian history. However,
I doubt that leftist inspired history of Austrailia is any more
reliable than leftist histories of America or anything else.
> >I would like to report that actual colonial rule was always
> >enlightened and fair toward colonial subjects. It wasn't. However, the
> >results of colonial rule was population explosions as medical care
> >became available, and the colonials got some taste of rule of law.
> >
> >Concerns about colonials' inability to create decent society for
> >themselves have proven justified over and over again. Their
> >liberations has resulted in dictatorship, tyranny, terror, famine,
> >massive deaths.
> With the West playing the role of gun-runner to those regimes thought
> favorable to their geopolitical designs there is little wonder. They
> didn't turn their arrows and spears into modern weaponry now did they?
I notice that aggressive Third World dictators and terrorists use
mainly AK-47s and RPG-7s, manufactured in the Soviet Union and other
communist countries, not Western nations.
No. Such limitations are merely left wing assertions.
> Who is responsible for social responsibility in the fishing and
> agricultural industries. Surely not those with the property rights?
> Land degradation and species eradication is the legacy of a past with
> unfettered rights.
It couldn't be since they didn't occure in places with unfettered
rights.
Interestingly enough, those governments that merit Carter's approval,
mainly communist countries during the Cold War, were ecological
disasters during their reign.
> Such resources are the right of all- including future generations, and
> they need responsible administration.
By what right?
> Such social intervention isn't socialism- but social responsibility.
> Plutocrats looking, as usual, for the fast buck, resist it.
Activities of various governments are generally only marginally
responsible.
> >>Imperial adventure is not in the interests of the masses but is often
> >>in the interests of the plutocratic class.
> >
> >Imperial adventure is about protection of citizens traveling abroad
> >into areas where their rights are not recognized. America's imperial
> >adventure began under John Adams who sent the fledgling U.S. Navy to
> >excort U.S. commercial shipping that was harrassed by the French.
> >
> >It continued under Jefferson when he sent the Marines to North Africa
> >to deal with pirates operating from North African countries. It
> >further continued when Benjamin Harrison sent the Navy to Japan
> >because of reports of Japanese mistreatment of shipwrecked U.S.
> >sailors of commercial vessles who wash up on the shores of Japan.
> You forgot to mention Cuba and the Spanish-American war. As usual
> picking examples that suit your distortion of history and which avoid
> mention of the history of US imperial adventures.
> >
> >>Every bomb dropped and every missile fired puts a profit in their
> >pocket.
> >
> >This is the usual pacifist prattle about war being caused by arms
> >manufacturers.
> They are just part of the picture- the real benefactors are the
> plutocrats and the policies they promote. Slavery, colonialism,
> imperialism- all to increase and secure their wealth and position.
Nowadays, slavery is found in Third World nations. Colonialism and
imperialism were attempts by Western nations to keep their own
citizens from being enslaved.
> >>Most of the US leadership -the so call 'chicken hawks' make sure that
> >>they are the furthest from the front lines of imperial-terror campaigns.
> >
> >This would include Wilson, FDR, Clinton.
> You could enlist.
I've been in the military.
> There are some new vacancies for neo-Imperial servants in Falujah, Iraq.
Carters joins those dancing in the streets over the killing of U.S.
soldiers.
> You might get a mention someplace on a plaque for the fallen heroes- while
> the plutocrats will get some stocks & profits when the oil spoils of Iraq are
> privatized off by the Chalabi puppet regime.
Carter prefers that oil revenues generated in Iraq be available to
fund terrorist activities.
No. There was no colonial rule in Vietnam.
> The US tried to take up where the French left off, to rule through the
> remnants of the French colonial system-but failed.
No. The US tried to keep South Vietnam from being conquered by North
Vietnam.
> >>Look at the current US position in the UN and judge for yourself-
> >>credibility zero.
> >
> >That would be the organization where most of its members are
> >dictatorships, where the UN Human Rights commission is chaired by
> >Lybia, a country Carter would consider a paragon of human rights, at
> >least the sort of human rights that Carter belives in.
No challenge here. Rather:
> Give a plutocrat an opportunity to put his vote where his mouth is -
> to walk the walk not just talk the talk, - and they run away.
> Democracy is not on their agenda anytime soon, neo-imperialism and
> democracy just don't mix.
Considering Carter's staunch support of dictators like Saddam Hussein,
he is the last one to talk about democracy.
> >>>> >> The second form is 'resistance-terror'. In this case, it is the
> >>>> >> victims of imperial terror who choose to be passive victims no longer,
> >>>> >> and resist the imperial aggressor with whatever tools are at hand.
> >>>> >> Imperialists tend to over-reach when the intended victims are literate
> >>>> >> people and have more organizational skill than the illiterate savages-
> >>>> >> the Imperial contests of the Great Powers during WW1 shows the folly
> >>>> >> of imperial campaigns against literate victims who thereby gain
> >>>> >> access to knowledge - to the strategic and tactical technologies that
> >>>> >> may seriously damage their enemies. In the case of 9-11, US flying
> >>>> >> schools.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >This dev poster sympathizes with Third World nations that like to
> >>>> >kidnap foreigners within their jurisdiction, seize (nationalize) their
> >>>> >property and give refuge to terrorist organizations that attack
> >>>> >citizens of other nations.
> >>>> I neither sympathize with the ideologues of imperial-terror nor with
> >>>> the ideologues of resistance-terror.
> >>>
> >>>He regards terrorist attacks and responses to terrorism as equivalent.
> >>If you genuinely want peace then you have to deal with causes.
> >
> >That means appeasing terrorists, letting them dictate U.S. policy.
> >
> >>Dealing with the issue with ideological rants...
> >
> >That means principles upholding human rights.
> >
> >>and throwing bombs at enemies...
> >
> >He would have us allow enemies to strike with impunity, without
> >opposition, resistance or retaliation.
Carter does not contest this.
Rather:
> If the kitchen is too hot for the cook, then the cook better get out
> of the kitchen. What came first - imperial terror or resistance-terror?
Question assumes facts not in evidence.
> >>...is hardly a method of promoting peaceful co-existance.
> >
> >I don't want to co-exist with somebody trying to kill me.
> Exactly the sentiments of the resistors of imperial-terror.
No. Terrorist sentiments involve hatred for freedom, hatred for
prosperity, hatred for life itself. That's why they strap dynamite to
their own childred in order to kill other children.
Carters sympathies for terrorists indicate he shares their rage.
> >>>> I am just pointing out that the empirical fact that the terror the
> >>>> West loves to hate is a product of the imperial-terror it either
> >>>> participates in or is acquiescent about.
> >>>
> >>>There is nothing emperical about this observation. It's the product of
> >>>the left wing outlook that justifies aggression and penalizes defense.
> >>I'm in the center not the right or left but you must be judging me
> >>from the vantage point of the plutocratic supremists- the ultra ultra
> >>right.
> >
> >That statement puts Carter on the extreme left that regards private
> >property as plutocratic per se.
> The moderate center!
The middle way between capitalism and socialism is a mixed economy. A
mixed economy is just a transitional phase as a country moves from
capitalism to socialism.
> It's obvious that unfettered capitalism ends in
> plutocracy as power and wealth consolidates in fewer and fewer hands.
That has not been the history of capitalism. The history of capitalism
has been a history of a rising standard of living for the masses.
> It then becomes more imperialist to protect and extend its
> appropriations since it has all the wealth it can extract from the
> underclass of it own impoverished citizenry. We will soon see the
> eradication of the US middle class as the are pushed by Job losses
> into the poverty trap. Revolution by 2050?
The US middle class has been eradicated as the US economic become less
capitalistic.
> >>>> >> Palestinian suicide bombings and 9-11 are examples of
> >>>> >> resistance-terror against the imperialist Zionist state of Israel and
> >>>> >> the USA.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >This guy sympathizes with terrorists to destroy Israel, to replace a
> >>>> >government that recognizes rights with a dictatorship that recognizes
> >>>> >no rights.
> >>>> A Zionist state of Israel does not included the citizens of the
> >>>> occupied territories in its political democracy.
> >>>
> >>>Terrorists consider all of Israel as occupied territory, even when
> >>>Palestinians within Israeli borders excerise all rights of Israeli
> >>>citizenship.
> >>When they were driven out in 1948 with artillery and terrorist attacks
> >>by Zionist terror groups,...
> >
> >This would be after Arabs started their attack on Israel.
> Whose land is it?
Israel's.
> >
> >>...some would think that, but the vast majority
> >>would accept a Jewish state but not Greater Israel or a continuous
> >>occupation that is attempting to evict them by stealth with oppressive
> >>policies of discrimination and violence. The Palestinians are staying
> >>put so you better think of something else.
> >
> >This means that Palestinians will continue to try to destroy Israel.
> Greater Israel.
No. All of Israel, a fact that Palestinians themselves do not deny.
> >>>> It has toyed with the idea of ethnic cleaning the rest of the Arab
> >>>> population, so that they never threaten the Jewish majority.
> >>>
> >>>No. The only ones toying with the idea of ethnic cleansing are the
> >>>Arabs who want to kill Jews. Their terrorist attacks are means to that
> >>>end. They kill Israeli soldiers, civilians, busloads of children.
> >>The Israelis call it 'transfer' but the world knows it by the name of
> >>'ethnic cleansing'.
> >
> >This would be Arab efforts to kill Jews.
> Stop changing the subject.
Yes. Carter doesn't consider Jewish desire not to be exterminated as
worth discussing when where we're talking about people who want to
kill Jews.
> >>>> Gaza looks likely to be Sharon's exclusion zone as the imperial-terrorist
> >>>> cleansing of the West bank continues.
> >>>
> >>>No. If anything, Israel has been too tolerant of a Palestinian
> >>>Authority that allows the West Bank to serve as staging areas for
> >>>terrorist attacks against Israel.
> >>It is US imperialist-terror that has created this problem.
> >
> >No. Arab terrorists created the problem.
> Who came first - the imperialists or the resistance?
Attacks on citizens of countries forced to adopt impearialist policies
to protect their own citizens.
> >>If the world community wants to designate land for the Jews then
> >>they either better designate land for the Islamic population as
> >>well.
> >
> >I don't care what the world community, most of whom live under
> >dictatorships, designates.
> In your view the world isn't fit to promote democracy - only your
> vision of paradise under US plutocratic domination will do!
We already know what sort of democracy Carter wants to promote:
dictatorship.
> >>The colonial situation is brought about by the quest by US plutocracy
> >>for world domination...
> >
> >This is how leftists characterize U.S. attempts to protect its
> >citizens from other governments. Leftists believe that other
> >governments should have the right to detain U.S. citizens, torture
> >them, kill them, seize their property, support terrorist attacks on
> >U.S. citizens en route on planes or boats.
> >
> >>...and for that they need to create conflicts that serve as a pretext
> >>for intervention.
> >
> >Leftists consider protecting rights as a pretext that justifies
> >terrorism.
> Ultra-rightist talk about 'democracy' but never practice it.
Carter wants to practice democracy by having a dictator take over.
> No wonder so few US citizens bother to vote.
> >
> >>If the Jews can be a special case and awarded privileges denied other
> >>groups,
> >
> >This would be their right to exist.
> Even if they abandon democracy to do so and embrace religious fascism
> and ethnic cleansing?
This is just the usual leftist cliches about those who want to defend
themselves.
> >>...so too can plutocrats be a special case and have privileges denied
> >>to the common masses.
> >
> >This would the right of common masses to seize property of the rich,
> >that leftists believe in.
> Elimination of plutocracy indirectly protects the rights of the rich-
> protects them from their own excesses and the inevitable revolutions
> that follow upon them.
Leftist dogma.
> Democratic market economies are the best solution but these differ from the
> US model that is founded upon the rigorous subversion of the democratic order.
"(R)igorous subversion of the democratic order" is how Carter
characterizes US refusal to adopt a dictatorship.
> >>For the plutocrats atrocities in Palestine are a test case for
> >>atrocities everywhere.
> >
> >Leftists consider responding to terrorist attacks as atrocities.
> >
> >>Didn't you learn anything from the Waco slaughter?
> >
> >Obscure reference.
> >
> >>>> >> Don't get into the question -is it justified? Moralizing on
> >>>> >> the issue is just propaganda for one side or the other.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >There is no doubt that this dev character believes that Palestinian
> >>>> >terrorists are justified, including strapping dynamite to their own
> >>>> >children to blow up Israeli children.
> >>>> You cannot end the cycle of violence by taking sides,...
> >>>
> >>>This is a pacifist argument whereby aggressors and defenders are
> >>>portrayed as equivalent.
> >>For you 'peace' exists when all the 'untermenchen' are either dead or
> >>in chains and servitude.
> >
> >Peace would exist when all terrorists are dead or imprisoned. But
> >Carter is concerned mainly with protecting terrorists.
> Or when everyone is dead?
No. Just terrorists and dictators who support them.
> Apocalypse now-WMD might just give you what you want if you really want to
> wipe out all those imperial terrorist and resistance-terrorist.
No. Just terrorists.
> What is to become of uncommitted sitting on the fence, do we get a vote?
No.
> >>Has the good ol USA really renounced slavery?
> >
> >It is leftists who have yet to renounce slavery, considering their
> >staunch support of dictatorships that enslave their citizens.
> Yanks have been supporting dictatorships for decades- can't you find
> South America on a map?
During the Reagan administration, the number of dictatorships in South
America have decreased.
> >>>> ...you can end it only if you understand its cause - imperial-terror and
> >>>> deal with it.
> >>>
> >>>This is the pacifist conclusion that one must appease aggressors in
> >>>order to get peace.
> >>What came first -imperial-terror or 'resistance-terror'?
> >
> >Question assumes facts not in evidence.
> Truth hurts don't it!
It doesn't hurt my cause.
> >>Clue- Causes always precede their effects.
> >
> >Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc.
> >
> >>>> Holding up the bodies of Jewish babies for the world to see, is just
> >>>> so much context destroying propaganda.
> >>>
> >>>He has no problems with Arabs killing Jewish babies. "Dev" has no
> >>>problem with strapping dynamite on Arab children to kill Israelis. He
> >>>considers children as legitimate means and targets of aggressors.
> >>Emotive propaganda for the Israeli babies or the Palestinian babies
> >>does not solve the problem of imperial-terror.
> >
> >That's because "imperial-terror" is not the problem. Aggressors who
> >use babies to kill babies are the problem.
> Only for imperial-terrorists who want world domination and total
> power.
This is how leftists characterize those who want to protect their
rights.
> >>>> Why are they dying other than in the context of just another vicious
> >>>> European colonial invasion of Palestine - another re-run of imperial-
> >>>> terror with the added problem for the Zionist invaders that this time
> >>>> they picked on 'literate people' and they have been a tougher nut to
> >>>> crack?
> >>>
> >>>He uses Marxist analysis to justify terrorism.
> >>This isn't anything to do with Marxism, it is just history and the
> >>observation of the facts- free of all the ideologue moralism that is
> >>bandied about to obscure them.
> >
> >I have shown otherwise. This whole thing about imperialism is recycled
> >Marxism. It will take more than picking and choosing facts taken out
> >of context, strung together to create a distorted picture to support
> >his analysis.
Carter does not challenge this. Rather:
> You have shown that you are basically a brain-washed rightist, with
> your head in the sand.
Given his mindless repetition of leftist cliches, I would say that
Carter is the one who's been brainwashed, only in his case, it
required only a light rinse.
> >>>> >> Having thus defined it, we now know how to objectively free ourselves
> >>>> >> from the threat of terrorism .
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Simple really, just stop supporting imperialist wars or those
> >>>> >> nations who do.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >He believes that one can gain safety by sucking up to terrorists.
> >>>> No I believe that you are underestimating the power of
> >>>> resistance-terrorism and over-estimating the power of the
> >>>> imperial-terror to win a war against literate peoples.
> >>>
> >>>He is saying that terrorists are so powerful that we had better get
> >>>down on our knees and suck up to them. Otherwise they would get mad
> >>>and really get rough.
> >>>
> >>>> The west has two options deal directly with the problem of imperial-
> >>>> terror and pull the USA and Israel into line, or go all the way with GW
> >>>> Bush into WW3.
> >>>
> >>>Works for me.
> >>>
> >>>> >> Bring the Australian troops home now, and boycott the goods of the
> >>>> >> Imperialist Israel /USA to reinforce their international isolation in
> >>>> >> the UN.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Perhaps the UN can move to Australia.
> >>>> Europe would be a better location-...
> >>>
> >>>As long as the UN is out of the US.
> >>>
> >>>> ...Australia is acting like a US puppet.
> >>>
> >>>From the leftist perspective, for a nation not to be a US puppet would
> >>>be for it to addopt a dictatorship and support international
> >>>terrorism, to become an enemy of the United States.
> >>>But for the US, Australia would not have any kind of democracy. In
> >>>WW2, Australia would succumb to Japanese aggression. During the Cold
> >>>War, Australia would end up with a communist dictatorship.
> >>>This is the root of dev's resentment against the US. He wants
> >>>dictatorship and hates the US for preventing Australia from having
> >>>one.
> >>The US has a problem with its political system- namely plutocracy.
> >
> >By which Carter means where the government does not seize all wealth.
> Where it does not control the excesses of wealth- its corruption and
> damaging influence.
No. The damage has been done by governments that don't recognize
rights, the sort of governments that Carter longs for.
> >>It is a system of successful subversion of the democratic will...
> >
> >This would mean the supposed desire of the masses to seize the wealth
> >of the rich.
> Control the wealth in the national and international interest.
In other words, a socialist dictatorship.
> >>...via the US presidential veto and capitalist control of
> >information.
> >
> >This would be the refusal of the media to advocate a socialist
> >dictatorship.
> >
> >>No diversity of opinion brings a type of plutocratic cheer squad
> >>to the political arena not a balanced responsible democracy.
> >
> >Actually, there is a diversity of opinion, the very diversity that
> >liberals complain of when they seek rules to drive conservative talk
> >show programs off the air.
> Hate shows are not entertainment but ideological brain washing.
No. Hateful rhetoric comes mainly from the left side of the spectrum.
But then, call the shows Carter doesn't like as "hate shows" is just a
pretext for calling for their elimination. He likes to talk about
diversity, but he wants to eliminate opinions that actually diverge
from his own.
> >However, Carter is complaining of a lack of media support for a
> >socialist dictatorship.
> An informed public is crucial for democracy.
Which is why a leftist media goes through tail spins to keep
information fromthe public.
> Under plutocracy the funding for an independent media with balanced views is
> curtailed.
Which means, there is no tax-supported leftist propaganda organ.
> Hence a media that is little more than a cheer squad for plutocracy.
Which means, it doesn't call for a socialist dictatorship.
> >>The only president electable under information vetting is one who will
> >>maintain imperial-terror in the perceived interests of the plutocratic
> >>system.
> >
> >Leftists consider themselves the true representatives of the will of
> >the masses, regardless of how the masses express themselves at the
> >ballot box. They decide that the masses are deluded, and thus feel
> >justified in disregarding people's actual beliefs.
> Actual brainwashing under plutocratic domination.
Carter's real grievance is that there isn't a socialist dictatorship
that controls the media.
> >>>> >> After their economies collapse, the realists in Israel and the USA
> >>>> >> will have the political leverage to bring their imperialist ideologues
> >>>> >> into line and withdraw from lands where they are unwelcome.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Yes. They can lay down and die.
> >>>> What problem do you have with peaceful coexistence?
> >>>
> >>>The sort of peaceful coexistance offered where terrorists gt to attack
> >>>whenever they want to and defenders do nothing.
> >>Remove imperial-terror and resistance-terrorism will disappear. Just
> >>like an illness really. Remove the cause and the symptoms go away.
> >
> >No. Remove resistance to terrorism and the terrorist body count will
> >only increase exponentially.
> Yes -remove non-violent resistance to imperial-terror and the body
> count certainly will go up!
No. History indicates otherwise. During the Vietnam war, leftists kept
shrieking "Stop the killing!" over and over again. When the war was
over, the killing only accelerated -- in Vietnam and Cambodia.
> >>>> >> Only then will we have an end to terrorism -peace by draw -game, set
> >>>> >> and match over!
> >>>> >
> >>>> >He believes he can find safety by allowing terrorists to dictate
> >>>> >Australian policy.
> >>>> Either equal rights or their own state- then they would not care a fig
> >>>> about Australian policy. What is it about democracy that you have
> >>>> a problem with or does plutocracy and imperial-terror grease your
> >>>> palm? Waiting for the privatization of Iraqi oil assets?
> >>>
> >>>Terrorists do not offer any kind of democracy or any kind of rights.
> >>>When terrorists win, the government itself becomes an instrument of
> >>>terror, which is what this dev character wants.
> >>Not true. Imperial-terror kills both Americans and Australians.
> >
> >No. It's terrorists who kill Americans and Australians, a fact
> >condoned by leftists who keep trying to exonerate terrorists.
> No it is plutocracy and imperialism that start such conflicts.
Leftists use such terms as plutocracy and impearialism to mean self
defense.
> Political problems need political solutions- not more wars for the
> plutocrats!
No. The problem of aggression requires defense, not appeasement or
surrender.
> >>Perhaps democracy in the USA is just what the doctor ordered to
> >>eliminate their social pathology of wealth and arrogance.
> >
> >This would mean eliminating the last vestiges of capitalism and
> >establish the sort of democracy exemplified by the Democratic Republic
> >of Vietnam or the Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany during
> >the Cold War), or even the People's Republic of China.
> A balance of private interest and public interests is what is
> obviously needed- except to the brainwashed propagandists for
> plutocracy.
Such a supposed balance is never stable. It's just a transitional
period from capitalism to complete socialism.
> >>Maybe terrorism is like a pain in the tooth, it tells you that
> >>somethings is wrong but nothing about what has caused it.
> >
> >He would get rid of the pain by killing the person suffering from the
> >pain.
> Doesn't follow.
Yes, it does. Carter condemns any action against those causing the
pain. The only alternative left is for the sufferer to die.
> >>The world had two conpetitive pariah states- the USSR and the USA.
> >
> >Carter undoubtedly sided with the former. He considered the US
> >"pariah" because it opposed the USSR.
> >
> >>Now it has only one.
> >
> >He misses the other. He hasn't forgiven the U.S. for opposing the sort
> >of democracy offered by the other.
> The other and you were closer than you think!
Then why is Carter so staunch is his support of the other?
> >>Oh how slowly we evolve from ignorance to understanding!
> >
> >He wants us to evolve in the other direction.
> A sensible/ rational direction.
Which isn't the one proposed by Carter.
> Where can we send your enlistment papers. Don't be a chicken hawk- the
> front line needs you- now!
I've been in the military, thank you.
But then people like Carter embrace pacifism so they can be cowards
and feel righteous about it.
dev
>> Where can we send your enlistment papers. Don't be a chicken hawk- the
>> front line needs you- now!
>
>I've been in the military, thank you.
Chicken-hawk? Thought so.
Iraq looks more like quagmire everyday, so am not surprised that
you decline my offer.
>But then people like Carter embrace pacifism so they can be cowards
>and feel righteous about it.
Modernists are realists they are not pacificists- they are are
agnostic and reject the conventional propaganda of traditionalism.
When theists are busy destroying themselves, egged along by the
Rightist miltiarist fanatics and plutocractic opportunists, what can
a realist do but understand that it is only evolution at work.
When billions of people are wiped out by WMDs, only then will the
world be ready for a modernist approach- a rational system of order
without gods or primative tribal notions of morality and justice, and
endless wars.
We are just letting the evolutionary process clear the dead wood by
letting your traditional system of ' order'- namely increasing chaos-
totally discredit itself.
Plutocratic capitalism wil do just that and end up a failed system
much like communism. Monotheism will bring it down- perhaps quicker
than one might think, particularly with the neo-cons writing your
scripts.
Modernists will be the first realists without any 'ism' to defend, as
traditionalism dies a slow and painful death and the survivors of
their Apocalypse contemplate a more inclusive world.
Dev Carter
Errant_Eye
the moral equivalists to change a word so that it has no moral meaning
- or rather to assume the moral umbrella that the word provides. The
same is being done to other words such as rape and genocide.
Terror is the application of violent force against innocent people for
the purpose of coercing societies or governments for political or
ideological reasons.
A terrorist intends to target the innocent, a guerilla or soldier
intends to target the opponents' means to wage war and those
oppponents actively engaged in operations against them. A soldier
does his or her utmost to avoid killing innocent civilians, a
terrorist targets them.
dev <myl...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<kvge609bcrjsblrqh...@4ax.com>...
Doug Jamal
> What a load of crap. All this frippery over the word is an attempt by
> the moral equivalists to change a word so that it has no moral meaning
> - or rather to assume the moral umbrella that the word provides. The
> same is being done to other words such as rape and genocide.
>
> Terror is the application of violent force against innocent people for
> the purpose of coercing societies or governments for political or
> ideological reasons.
>
> A terrorist intends to target the innocent, a guerilla or soldier
> intends to target the opponents' means to wage war and those
> oppponents actively engaged in operations against them. A soldier
> does his or her utmost to avoid killing innocent civilians, a
> terrorist targets them.
>
<snipped>
You are absolutely correct!
dev
>What a load of crap. All this frippery over the word is an attempt by
>the moral equivalists to change a word so that it has no moral meaning
>- or rather to assume the moral umbrella that the word provides. The
>same is being done to other words such as rape and genocide.
Are you complaining that I am undermining the moral ideologue's
propaganda. Which is typically one of claiming 'we are the virtuous'
'they are the evildoers'. 'We are perfectly justified in protecting
ourselves and eliminating 'them' and anyone who gets in our way'.
The problem we have with this position is that ' imperial-terror' is
never mentioned by the moral ideologues. On this subject they are
totally silent.
Particularly since imperial-terror has been so spectacularly
successful throughout history for increasing one's dominion and
standard of living. So the dispassionate observer has to look beyond
the moral camouflage to see what is really at stake in the game, for
situations when 'moral' propaganda is really a device for concealing a
campaign for a significant gain of 'tribal' resources.
So which of these tribal 'heists' are blessed by God?
Does God really want Bush to privatize Iraqi oil assets for the
benefit of the US plutocrats looking for a bigger slice of the world
resource and energy pie? Or for the Jews to expel the Palestinians
from a Greater Israel?
In the absence of God's ruling, a conflict of interest over assets and
resources is a political matter that is resolved by war or diplomacy.
But nobody is talking of the later.
The case that the moral ideologues are arguing for is that the
'untermenchen' do not have any rights, are 'unlawful combatants' and
may be disposed of as the 'authorities' see fit. This is typically the
case when they are ignorant illiterate savages but what if that is not
the case. 'Imperial-terror' in such cases is not 'morally equivalent'
but just plain stupid. It invites not only retaliation in kind, but
the motivation of the' resistance-terror' to up the ante. A spiral of
violence that will make the Great War look like a picnic.
So the modernist is pointing out that you are a player in a
geopolitical game that you better understand thoroughly before you put
all your chips on the table, God is not around to protect you, and if
you listen just to the ideologues, the cards may go against you.
Imperialist wars are risky propositions at best, but against literate
peoples even more so.
>
>Terror is the application of violent force against innocent people for
>the purpose of coercing societies or governments for political or
>ideological reasons.
In other words 'our dominion over the untermenchen' should have no
negative consequence for us. They should play the game by our
restricted set of rules which without exception would ensure their
' total extermination.' or ' total surrender'.
The modernist is clearly pointing out that talk about 'innocence ' is
typical propaganda for the imperial-terrorist, who having gained
'dominion' wants to terminate the game altogether so that their gains
are not threatened by a resistance. Unfortunately geopolitical games
do not end just when one side wishes to declare victory, or chooses
to forget the past massacres of the 'untermenschen' and get along with
life enjoying the spoils of victory.
>
>A terrorist intends to target the innocent, a guerilla or soldier
>intends to target the opponents' means to wage war and those
>oppponents actively engaged in operations against them. A soldier
>does his or her utmost to avoid killing innocent civilians, a
>terrorist targets them.
The great problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that
civilians fund political regimes who create armies and imperial forces
that impose dominion upon others and the advantages of conquest.
Are the 'untermenschen' to just face the killing machine of their
enemies - the imperial army and be totally exterminate like the
Tasmanian aborigine, or resist against the civilian population that
dispatched them?
Moral propagandists for imperial victories put great faith in their
concept of 'innocence' and want to rally the masses to complete their
colonial or imperial enterprise.
Modernists would point out that the outcomes of such adventures are
uncertain. They involve a risk and the outcome for the individual
cannot be predicted. With the prospect of 1000 Bin Ladens being
created by reckless US neo-imperial adventures the risks grow with
their eventual aquisition of more dangerous biological and viral
weaponry.
The moral ideologues rhetoric will not protect you but a greater
understanding of political conflicts and the complex nature of
'terror' just might.
So now we can be objective about the traditional 'terror we love' that
old fashioned imperial-terror with a happy ending for ' us', and
modern neo-imperial-terror that seems only to brings us death or
fear- the 'resistance-terror we hate'.
Imperial adventure seems to have outgrown its usefulness. The
modernist message is adapt or die.
Dev Carter
Errant_Eye
> On 5 Apr 2004 14:29:16 -0700, Erran...@yahoo.com (Errant_Eye) wrote:
>
> >What a load of crap. All this frippery over the word is an attempt by
> >the moral equivalists to change a word so that it has no moral meaning
> >- or rather to assume the moral umbrella that the word provides. The
> >same is being done to other words such as rape and genocide.
> Are you complaining that I am undermining the moral ideologue's
> propaganda.
Terror/terrorism is a tactic. This tactic can be used by individuals,
amorphous groups, organizations, states and hyper-states (the UN).
This tactic can also be discarded and avoided. Those who discard the
tactic are possessed or a greater moral authority than those who
embrace it.
Imperialism is a policy (series of policies) by a state or if you are
an adherent to the far left Imperialism is an ineluctable condition,
the final stage of capitalism. In which case the spread of
Imperialism is something to be applauded by the left as the inevitable
triumph of global communism must not be far beyond.
> Which is typically one of claiming 'we are the virtuous'
> 'they are the evildoers'. 'We are perfectly justified in protecting
> ourselves and eliminating 'them' and anyone who gets in our way'.
>
> The problem we have with this position is that ' imperial-terror' is
> never mentioned by the moral ideologues. On this subject they are
> totally silent.
It isnt mentioned by anybody because it is crap.
>
> Particularly since imperial-terror has been so spectacularly
> successful throughout history for increasing one's dominion and
> standard of living. So the dispassionate observer has to look beyond
> the moral camouflage to see what is really at stake in the game, for
> situations when 'moral' propaganda is really a device for concealing a
> campaign for a significant gain of 'tribal' resources.
> >Terror is the application of violent force against innocent people for
> >the purpose of coercing societies or governments for political or
> >ideological reasons.
> In other words 'our dominion over the untermenchen' should have no
> negative consequence for us. They should play the game by our
> restricted set of rules which without exception would ensure their
> ' total extermination.' or ' total surrender'.
In other words, it is fine for them to intentionally bash in the heads
of babies because we produce "Bay Watch" and people within their own
country/society want to watch it. It is ok for them to ambush a
vehicle containing unarmed civilians whose desire it is to encourage
Iraqi women to voice their desire for equal rights.
> The modernist is clearly pointing out that talk about 'innocence ' is
Don't confuse your amorality with being a "modernist". Amorality has
existed since the dawn of mankind, there is nothing modern about it.
> typical propaganda for the imperial-terrorist, who having gained
> 'dominion' wants to terminate the game altogether so that their gains
> are not threatened by a resistance. Unfortunately geopolitical games
> do not end just when one side wishes to declare victory, or chooses
> to forget the past massacres of the 'untermenschen' and get along with
> life enjoying the spoils of victory.
My child is innocent, your child is innocent, every Kurdish and Sunni
and Shiia and North Korean child is innocent and should not be the
intended target of violence.
War is horrible. Innocents are caught in the cross-fires of war, this
is one reason why it is horrible. Terrorism is worse. The terrorist
has no moral standing.
> >
> >A terrorist intends to target the innocent, a guerilla or soldier
> >intends to target the opponents' means to wage war and those
> >oppponents actively engaged in operations against them. A soldier
> >does his or her utmost to avoid killing innocent civilians, a
> >terrorist targets them.
> The great problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that
> civilians fund political regimes who create armies and imperial forces
> that impose dominion upon others and the advantages of conquest.
Governments collect and direct those funds. Target the governments,
their soliders and police and you are arguably a guerilla, not a
terrorist.
>
> Are the 'untermenschen' to just face the killing machine of their
> enemies - the imperial army and be totally exterminate like the
> Tasmanian aborigine, or resist against the civilian population that
> dispatched them?
Target the governments. I am not complaining that al-Qaeda IEDs
targeted against the military are terrorism, that is a method of war
fighting. I am not saying insurgents/rebels/revolutionaries must
stand up and face M-1s with only their Kalashnikovs. I am saying that
wrapping an explosive laden vest mixed with roofing nails and rat
poison on your person and walking onto a bus loaded with men, women
and children then setting it off IS Terrorism.
>
> Moral propagandists for imperial victories put great faith in their
> concept of 'innocence' and want to rally the masses to complete their
> colonial or imperial enterprise.
>
> Modernists would point out that the outcomes of such adventures are
> uncertain. They involve a risk and the outcome for the individual
> cannot be predicted. With the prospect of 1000 Bin Ladens being
> created by reckless US neo-imperial adventures the risks grow with
> their eventual aquisition of more dangerous biological and viral
> weaponry.
A true "modernist" would recognize that bin Laden represents turning
the clock back to the 12th century in terms of freedom.
>
> The moral ideologues rhetoric will not protect you but a greater
> understanding of political conflicts and the complex nature of
> 'terror' just might.
One can be both moral and complex, moral and reasoned, moral and
understand the way the world works.
>
> So now we can be objective about the traditional 'terror we love' that
> old fashioned imperial-terror with a happy ending for ' us', and
> modern neo-imperial-terror that seems only to brings us death or
> fear- the 'resistance-terror we hate'.
>
> Imperial adventure seems to have outgrown its usefulness. The
> modernist message is adapt or die.
Imperialism was arguably the best thing to happen to many of the
colonialized peoples. It brought economic developement, improved
education and health care.
Jim Austin
> >> Where can we send your enlistment papers. Don't be a chicken hawk- the
> >> front line needs you- now!
> >
> >I've been in the military, thank you.
> But not the front line!
I went where they sent me.
> Chicken-hawk? Thought so.
Chicken dove?
> Iraq looks more like quagmire everyday, so am not surprised that
> you decline my offer.
Whatever.
> >But then people like Carter embrace pacifism so they can be cowards
> >and feel righteous about it.
There's no challenge here. Instead, he changes the subject.
> Modernists are realists they are not pacificists- they are are
> agnostic and reject the conventional propaganda of traditionalism.
Obscure reference.
> When theists are busy destroying themselves, egged along by the
> Rightist miltiarist fanatics and plutocractic opportunists, what can
> a realist do but understand that it is only evolution at work.
I am an atheist.
> When billions of people are wiped out by WMDs, only then will the
> world be ready for a modernist approach- a rational system of order
> without gods or primative tribal notions of morality and justice, and
> endless wars.
This would be a system that tolerates dictatorships, supports
tyrannies, encourages terrorism.
> We are just letting the evolutionary process clear the dead wood by
> letting your traditional system of ' order'- namely increasing chaos-
> totally discredit itself.
The only thing being discredited is the left wing ideology that is
pro-dictatorship, pro-tyrant, pro-terrorist.
> Plutocratic capitalism wil do just that and end up a failed system
> much like communism.
our economic system suffers as it becomes less capitalistic.
> Monotheism will bring it down- perhaps quicker than one might think,
> particularly with the neo-cons writing your scripts.
Neo-conservatives have not written my script.
> Modernists will be the first realists without any 'ism' to defend, as
> traditionalism dies a slow and painful death and the survivors of
> their Apocalypse contemplate a more inclusive world.
Carter longs for a world dominated by dictators, tyrants, terrorists.