|By Petermarc on Friday, March 01, 2002 - 12:44 am: Edit|
his 'duty' was to his wife and family...
thrillseeker, pure and simple...
|By Pablo on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 11:34 pm: Edit|
Petermarc :"his job was his choice, his decision was his choice, he was not drafted.."
Thats precisly why I'm toasting him. He went because he felt it was his duty. The paper didn't tell him to go! He knew that he was going to what is turning into the WORST AND MOST DANGEROUS place in the world for a reprter to go.
Unlike most of the half assed primma donna's in news today, he went.
I spent 4 years in the U.S. army (11B all the way) and I appreciate the risk he took. Unarmed. With no arty or cav to call on as back up.
Weather you think it was stupid or not, gotta admit, it took balls.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 09:58 pm: Edit|
Good gods, man, if the election was totally rigged, don't you think they would have done a better job of it? As it is, they only squeaked by by a few hundred votes. The election could have been thrown by a nasty flu epidemic keeping a few hundred Republicans home. The election may have been tweaked a bit, but it wasn't rigged. If they were going to rig it, they would have left more of a margin of error.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 09:53 pm: Edit|
|By Mvario on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 09:52 pm: Edit|
or 3) We live with it because we have no choice, but know in our hearts it was rigged.
and as for the situation being reversed, I don't see it happening, the Republicans are the ones who like to play it fast & loose, and feel that laws don't apply to them as long as their andidate gets in. The Dems haven't had the balls for that shit since papa Joe Kennedy passed away.
As for the Suprem Court, you are correct, and they are the way they are ultimately because this country elected Reagan and pappy Bush, and those who voted for them (and those who didn't vote) deserve wht they get.
As for the Nader/3rd part thing... the 2 parties we have are so similar it's hard to tell the players without a scorecard, most of them are bough and paid for and not looking out for YOUR welfare. If third parties aren't viable it's only beause people don't think they are. I usually don't bother preaching my views, but I try to live them. Things are only going to change when the voters realize they don't have to play along if they don't like the rules, they make the rules. If you like a major party candidate, fine. But if you're one of that large group of folks who say they don't then don't get sucked into their game, vote for someone else. It's not a matter of "spoilers", it's a matter of doing the right thing.
|By Robman on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 09:02 pm: Edit|
Politics and absinthe seem to have good "synergy" :^D
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:54 pm: Edit|
The election was a farce, it was rigged, and there was no way that they were going to let Gore take office even if he did win.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:49 pm: Edit|
Also, Florida could NOT have just appointed the electors because FL state laws says so
|By Pikkle on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:40 pm: Edit|
who cares, it's all the same, just stick with the winner, you can't go wrong... unless you're some whiney bleeding heart left wing liberal who will never be satisfied with anything and espouses tons of hippocritical rhetoric that adds up to guilt laden scare tactics meant to frighten small children away from clubbing baby seals while their tiny fingers freeze in the harsh North Dakota winter...
|By Mvario on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:38 pm: Edit|
I don't either... but I'm one of those left-wing crazies and voted for Nader... Just dislike Bush a whole lot more.
|By Drbeer on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:32 pm: Edit|
I didn't like Gore so I suppose I'm glad he didn't take office.
|By Pikkle on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:27 pm: Edit|
ya, okay, when is it not? Duh...
|By Mvario on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:00 pm: Edit|
Re the FL election.
I guess everyone's going to believe what they want.
But basically Jeb's folks in FL did everything possible to keep black (i.e. very likely to vote for Gore) away from the polls, and they broke numerous state and federal laws to do so.
Also, Florida could NOT have just appointed the electors because FL state laws says so
and, yes, ultimately (and unfortunately) it came down to the Supreme court, hand picked by Reagan and Bush. If you are liberal you probably can't come up with a whole lot of decisions this supreme court made that are any good. As conservative a court as there ever was.
The election was a farce, it was rigged, and there was no way that they were going to let Gore take office even if he did win.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 04:16 pm: Edit|
Yeah, it appears Captain Anthrax was just pissed off that he was laid off, or at least that is the story that is circulating. I'm pretty sure I got that from a maintream news source, so I don't think I'm blowing anything. The scary thing, is that it bears some amount of resemblance to the motivation given for the real JFK gunman in the Illuminatus! Trilogy.
So, yeah, people willing to commit mass murder and sow fear and terror come from all walks of life and do so for all sorts of reasons.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 04:11 pm: Edit|
The rules of law in Florida were bent and broken and stepped on to give that state to Dubya.
|By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 03:34 pm: Edit|
Just remember where you heard it first, nest time someone stupidly says that I get my jollies reading SOF. I wouldn't wipe my ass with SOF. I tried once. Bob Brown's cheapo ink gave my butt a nasty rash.
|By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 03:31 pm: Edit|
You won't see much in the press till they pop the guy and Mirandize his murderous greedy ass. Because that's the way they want it. It's the motive that will really tick you off.
|By Mvario on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 02:49 pm: Edit|
And I stuck those words in a search engine and got this page
Which is a lot more than I knew. I didn't realize they were zeroing in. Haven't heard much about it in the press lately (which is probably a good thing considering the hysteria they whipped up, at least here in NYC, but I'm sure they just got tired of it and wanted to look for the next thing to sensationalize). Thanks for the info Don.
|By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 11:27 am: Edit|
The challenge for American society is to protect itself while we are rooting out terror from the world stage, at least as best as possible, and then returning to normalcy at home, rolling back the intrustions into privacy and personal freedoms. This might not be easy or simple, but it is necessary, and if we fail at the rollback while succeeding at the war, then we will have indeed lost.
But if we do succeed at the destruction of global terror, then there will come a day when passengers won't have to be seperated from the cockpit of an airliner by an armored door, when CMH winners in their 80s aren't harassed by jumped up rentacops, and when Secret Service agents aren't put off flights because they happen to be Arab Americans.
By the way, Mr Rabid is right about the anthrax mailer. The government knows who he is, he is not political, he is criminal, and shamefully, one of our own. They are busily nailing down an airtight case. This guy will get to know sodium pentathol very intimately, but not for very long. Watch for these words: Dugway Proving Grounds, weaponized Ames strain, Ft Detrick, contractor.
|By Baz on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 09:24 am: Edit|
you guys are both right. They are animals, and cowardly animals at that. How brave is it to beat stab and kill a restrained hostage?
But he did stick his head in the mouth of the beast. He wanted to know why. He felt he had the duty. I hope that he realized the danger, and didnt go in half-cocked. I believe he did know, and felt it was worth the risk. He wasn't an amateur.
|By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:47 am: Edit|
No. For $5M the ISI guys will rat each other out. And that is the group really responsible. That is the group that the Pali PM has to bring down, and get control of, or else they will bring HIM down. Like they did Zia al Haq.
They are pros, they will sell out but not cheap.
|By Petermarc on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:20 am: Edit|
his job was his choice, his decision was his choice, he was not drafted...
and, of couse, i have no problem with going after those guys anyways, but you could offer $100 in that part of the world, and it might bring out the same amount of information...
|By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 07:52 am: Edit|
Oh, so it's Pearl's fault, for doing his JOB?
Get your head out of your ass.
His own fault, that he got his head chopped off, like any number of hostages of the Abu Sayyef (soon to be extinct) or skinned alive like poor Bill Buckley in Beirut?
And let me remind you that THAT atrocity was personally conducted by Ossama's number two man, the head of the Eguyptian Islamic Jihad?
These people are terrorist ANIMALS and need to be put down like animals. Make no mistake about it. And that is exactly what we are going about doing.
|By Petermarc on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 07:21 am: Edit|
$ 5 million...how many poor families can you feed with that?
|By Petermarc on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 06:24 am: Edit|
>is just flat out......
dangerous as hell...one can feel sorry for his wife and baby, but come on! he was risking his life and he knew it, just like other journalists who put themselves out there like that...there is a certain arrogance by reporters that think they are supposed to be untouchable in this type of situation, or have the right to be saved when something screws up...do you think the military would have given permission for such an outing by a civilian? there is a fine line between being a hero and a thrill-seeker...
|By Pablo on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 04:53 am: Edit|
Daniel Pearl was a very good reporter. He also had balls of steel. For a jewish reporter to go to an islamic country and try to effort a story on the Pakistani intelligence and their ties with osama bin runnin is just flat out......words fail me.
He was the epitome of a journalist.
I'll be downing one for you Daniel.
|By Pablo on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 01:18 am: Edit|
Well said Rabid.
|By Mr_Rabid on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 09:23 pm: Edit|
That's Africa. It's the middle east too. Cultural values that don't have a problem with violence.
Who are we to judge, or to stop it, unless it threatens our interests?
In the middle east, it does, cuz they gots them some black gold, texas tea...oil, that is.
I wish we would be more honest about it too. Why is everyone so afraid of that?
"Yeah, I know you are the ruler of Whateverstan, Azim. And you are really mad at the ruler of Theotherstan. But you are destabilizing the region which threatens our oil supply, and therefore the economic well being of our nation. So we are stopping your war. Sorry and stuff, but fuck off."
Was that so hard?
|By Mvario on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 09:16 pm: Edit|
But that's the thing, under the "rules of law" Gore won. Turning folks away from the polls was illegal, counting absentee ballots postmarked too late was illegal. The rules of law in Florida were bent and broken and stepped on to give that state to Dubya.
|By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 08:13 pm: Edit|
Uh, Rwanda/Burundi was and is, Hutu vs Tutsi and Tutsi vs Hutu. If you want to argue that it's quasi tribal or hemi tribal or whatever, it's still tribal, it's the African curse. Blaming it on the long departed Belgians isn't any help. Saying it was governmental is no help when the government was one group and the victims were the OTHER group.
|By _Blackjack on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 07:50 pm: Edit|
I'm not saying that the plurality of people in Florida who voted (or were eligible but turned away) intended to vote for Bush. I'm pretty sure they didn't. I am saying that, under the rule of law as it existed at the time of the elections, the accepted procedure determined Bush to be the winner. The winner is not determined by the intention of the voters, but by the number of valid ballots counted under the existing rules.
|By Mvario on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 07:08 pm: Edit|
Well, on the second part I'm disagreeing with you. The point I was trying to get at was that where and when the US government intervenes is determined by econimic interests, yet historically, and today they spout rhetoric that it's all about good and evil and doing the right thing. That's why no one cares about Rwanda but threaten Kuwait and the troops go in. I'm not saying we should be the moral police of the world, though I guess I'm implying that I believe in the sovereignty of nations, so if internal shit happens in some country in the world I don't think the US (nor any other country) has the right to bring it's covert or military powers to bear.
And don't even get me started on FL. Every questionable ballot (paper or absentee) and every county that was or wasn't recounted was counted in favor of Dubya. And the actions up to the time of the elections to disenfranchise black voters was unconscionable. Do the research. Dubya did not win.
|By _Blackjack on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 06:55 pm: Edit|
Hell, I'm a big fuzzy liberal, and I'M tired of the whole "he wasn't elected" crap. There was a rule of law in place. That law may have been flawed or poorly designed, but it was all we had to work with. Under that rule of law, Bush won. Personally, it should have never even been an issue. The FL legislature should have just appointed the electors and been done with it.
Rwanda was not "tribalism". It was a deliberate act of genocide by the government, for calculated political purposes, and one of the worst acts of genocide on record, as far as the rate of death went (about 1 million dead in a few months!). Fortunately, that government is gone, tho only time will tell if the new one is any better.
Not incidentally, the "tribal" seperation in Rwanda was imposed by the Belgians, based on how many catle people owned, in order to make their adminstration easier. Previous to that, there were no set boundries between the Batutsi and Bahutu, and individuals could move between the groups. It was more of an issue of social class than ethnicity.
|By Etienne on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 06:06 pm: Edit|
I also am getting a little tired of this bullshit about the election in Florida.
Gore lost. He had a recount.. he lost again. Recounted again, guess what? Lost again.
What does it take?
|By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 05:58 pm: Edit|
The Florida newspapers counted the votes that the SCOTUS didn't, and Bush won fair and square. Sour grapes from Gore supporters count for nothing. Bush won. Gore LOST, he was the one who sought relief in the courts in the first place and now his supporters want to gripe that things didn't go their way.
As to "those responsible for" Sept 11, let's not forget that Saddam has his fingers in the Al Qaeda pie, and that the choice of target was obviously HIS -- Ramsey Youssef was an IRAQI agent, and failed ten years ago, now Ossama's boys, with Iraqi control, succeeded where Youssef blew it.
So going after Iraq IS going after the folks responsible.
I seriously doubt that the US is going to was with Iran, or N.Korea, for any number of good reasons, but, that doesn't mean they are Nice Guys.
Zimbabwe isn't really our patch, it's the UK's and the UN's and the EU's more than ours. Of course Mugabe is an asshole, and y'know what? HE ALWAYS WAS, what he is doing was predicted and predictible. Read some Ruark, or some (Wilbur, not Ian) Smith. Skip the Alan Paton.
Rwanda? Get real. If we were going to intervene militarily every time tribalism rears its genocidal head in black Africa, we'd have to colonize the entire sub-Saharan continent...
|By Mvario on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 05:44 pm: Edit|
oh "evil doesn't enter in to it. It's a sound-bite, marketing. Bush figures he's got everyone behind him and the military all motored up so while he goes after those responsible for the attacks on Sept 11, he might as well see if he can go after everyone else who is against the USA (read against US coporate interests).
There's evil governments all around the world and frankly Scarlett, the President doesn't really give a damn... unless of course there is an economic reason behind it. I don't see him itching to send troops in to Rwanda, Burma or Algeria. And I'm sure he doesn't want to hear about the "elections" in Madagascar and Zimbabwe... that would hit too close to home, reminding him of his big heist in FL.
"Everybody needs money, that's why they call it money"
|By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 01:49 pm: Edit|
Evil does not exist, whether a deed is good or evil is a perception held by a person who has a view on an act.
Do I think killing Daniel Pearl was Evil? I most certainly do. Do killers think it was Evil? Probably not. Do I think that the USA, UK, USSR, China etc. have committed Evil deeds in the name of causes that they deem to be Just? Yes I do. Did the perpetrators of these deeds believe them to be Evil? Probably not, they no doubt believed that the loss of life they caused was done for the greater good.
Evil is ultimately just a matter of opinion and depends on which of the many sides of an argument you stand. I stand on the side that says the killers of Daniel Pearl were Evil bastards.
|By Baz on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 01:28 pm: Edit|
I've been bitten on the knobby a few times by evil, and to me the killing of pearl was just run of the mill for these bloodthirsty fucks.
Whether its a warlord with a technical, a kidnapper with a knife, or an arab with a bomb, these "people" think that bravery and courage is killing. They are so blinded by tunnel vision that they can't even see what they are doing to themselves, its just the POWER to kill others that gives them a raison d'etre.
It reminds me of inner city gang violence in the early nineties. The explanations for why it happens, after a while, just stop making sense.
|By Arj on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 12:00 pm: Edit|
I'm practicing non-action perfectly, Meaty. My words couldn't be more in harmony. Put down that gee-tar junior and get over to Religion 101. Non-action is not in-action.
|By _Blackjack on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 11:51 am: Edit|
You want to open the list up to China?
Now who's being irresponsible?
|By Meat_Nipples on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 11:26 am: Edit|
I am dancing around some sensitive nerves here as I can see. I don't condone the killing of Daniel Pearl. It was horrendous, and all my sympathy goes out to his family. But all this is besides my point. And if I offended anyone with my Vietnam example all I can say is that I have the utmost respect for anyone who did the right thing and fought for our country in that war, though I think our government was wrong to put and keep us their so long. Once again this is besides my point.
I don't mean to come off sounding ignorant, I don't think I have attacked anyone’s character here and if you feel I am unqualified to say these things then that's your prerogative. I have no problem with that but this is my prerogative. I can see this is getting us no where and my point about the use of the word evil seems to have been lost in all this side bullshit.
And sorry for the mix-up DrBeer. To anyone who wants to make this personal, Arj, thank you for receiving my comments with an open mind and not reverting to childish insults (is there a keyboard face for sarcasm?). Why don’t you revert to some “non-action” instead and shut-up. And before you respond with, “Why don’t you practice what you preach”, I am not continuing with this topic, I have said my peace.
|By Arj on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 10:43 am: Edit|
Meat-ball, It was I, not Dr. Beer, who criticized "sheltered blame-America-first college students." The label wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but it does seem to fit you, so you can wear it.
Don, rock on. You couldn't be more right.
|By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 10:09 am: Edit|
And you, sirrahy, are a wet behind the ears college kid who wouldn't know evil if it bit you on the knobby.
Spend some time in the real world, son, and you will get to see some evil. Sit in my vantage in Thailand and dare to fucking lecture ME about Vietnam, arrogant puppy.
You want to condone the killing of a journalist to produce a propaganda tape, and it's you I'd call evil. Why don't you call Pearl's wife and tell her that her husband's butchers are morally equivalent to the United States in the Indochina war?
In short -- fuck you. Ignorant snot!
|By Scanion on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 09:20 am: Edit|
I like Pablo's comment about it being the staff, not the President. There is a lot of truth to that. The US federal goverment is way too big for one person to run it. The President must rely on the strength of his staff, but also show leadership.
Compare Clinton and Bush 43. Clinton came became President and had a long list of objectives. However, I do not think he had a vision. He did a lot of the work himself, but I never sensed he was leading his staff. Bush 43 has articulated sweeping changes he wants to make, before and after 911. He admittedly is a hands-off leader, but trusts that his staff will execute his vision.
Many criticize Bush for lacking knowledge, but what he has shown is the ability to lead. Even if you think he is leading the US to hell in a handbasket, Bush 43 believes he is doing right.
|By Meat_Nipples on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 08:59 am: Edit|
To clarify about the self-righteous comment; using the word evil is so dualistic, so "we have god on our side", so if you don't agree with us you are evil, that it makes me sick. Evil is a relative term, but it implies a holier than now attitude that is just begging to be misunderstood. Our government has made a lot of bad decisions (I won't go into them, we will get off topic) in the past that, depending on who's side you are on, were evil.
If killing Daniel Pearl was done for political reasons, then it was no more evil than us going to war for political reasons (such as all the innocents that died in Vietnam) and basically no more evil than our history on this continent (again I will forgo the details). Do I believe America is evil? No certainly not. America is a great place, because I have benefited from it, I am on that side of the fence.
Evil is a childish word that reaffirms ones position and incites anger from those that disagree. "Evil" speaks to the world; “we are right and that is the end of it, f**ck diplomacy.” Do things our way or there is going to be blood shed.
Dr. Beer: I must have misunderstood you, I thought you were calling me a "sheltered college student w/ a blame America first attitude". If that wasn't directed at me then I apologize for getting defensive ;)
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation