EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:41 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:43 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2314
Location: Central Colorado
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
In the past when I served, pay was less than civilian, and people did it out of patriotism and duty. Now it is the government big pay feed bucket;
http://www.military.com/veterans-report ... ESRC=vr.nl


You mean that you were then willing to sacrifice your very, very precious life .... a life that no other than you could uniquely live ....?

At that time, you were ready to sacrifice your unique life to the "job" of fighting for an ideology? Freedom, was it? Ready to let your life go, sacrifice your life for the idea of "patriotism" and this thing called "Duty"?

Patriotism and duty are ideas which society has infringed upon you.
This will be hard on you. You will fight this. You will be mad at me.

But if you do not hold your own life as sacred (and it is), how will you ever know those you were bombing as sacred? The lives you ended were as worth living as your own.

If you value your own life .... Let's hope you do .... then you might also value the lives of others, becauuse they ARE you.

What a bunch of ignorant horse crap. You obviously never read about what I did or you would be apologizing.
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v699/ ... toffer.jpg
Then there is the troll tommee, who has his facts mixed up. The USA is anti-terrorism, while Iran and others are known supporters of terrorism.

I see that 'animal friendly' never apologized for calling me a bomber and killer, when I saved many lives.
Then you have 'right to left' who confuses support of anti-communist forces with supporting terrorism.
Personally, I don't think we should have done anything except nuke the terrorist camps and supporters on 9-11 and 12.
I like the Ike warning, and agree that the USA is partially a corporate hegemony, and not what our founders wanted in other ways, too. Certainly not in line with Madison's Papers.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:30 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5778
Location: USA
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Personally, I don't think we should have done anything except nuke the terrorist camps and supporters on 9-11 and 12.


Agreed. Would have saved billions on top of American lives. Further, I'm not terribly concerned with collateral damage to "innocent" bystanders. You don't clip weeds, you kill them, root and all. These cultures do little other than allow terrorism to rise and thrive. They rip each other's eyeballs out for "religious infractions", and we have folks here wigging out over losing their insurance coverage to elective medical procedures. SMDH.

Quote:
I like the Ike warning, and agree that the USA is partially a corporate hegemony, and not what our founders wanted in other ways, too. Certainly not in line with Madison's Papers.


The insight of those before my time I find very interesting. They saw it coming. I see it too, it's just something an order of magnitude worse.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:07 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:54 pm
Posts: 53
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
I see that 'animal friendly' never apologized for calling me a bomber and killer, when I saved many lives.
Then you have 'right to left' who confuses support of anti-communist forces with supporting terrorism.

Johnny, it wasn't my intention to join a forum and start swinging in the first week; but this statement you made earlier:" The USA is anti-terrorism, while Iran and others are known supporters of terrorism" can't be allowed to just stand unchallenged! The USA is anti-terrorism in the sense that it is the hub of a commercial empire that faces no major adversaries on the battlefield, so it only fears what theoreticians call asymmetrical warfare -- terrorism! And what grinds my gears is that it is called "terrorism" when the violence against mostly civilian populations is conducted by enemies of America, or American interests, while terrorism conducted by U.S. forces directly (drone warfare) or proxy forces (take your pick: the tin pot dictatorships set up by the CIA in Latin America, Africa, and many parts of Asia) is ignored if there is no press attention, or given a different label if it does show up in the news.

As for Iran...if you were objective, you would have to admit that Iran is more a victim of U.S. and Israeli terrorism than a perpetrator. I can't think of one recent terrorist incident that has been blamed on Iran by the U.S. and Israelis, which has not been shown to be either fraudulent or just plain lacking any evidence to back up the charge. While on the other hand, Iran has been subjected to terrorist assassinations of their nuclear scientists by the Israelis, and two cyber war incidents are traced right back to the Obama Administration...the same one that declared last year that they would consider any cyber attack on U.S. infrastructure as an act of war. So, who are the real terrorists these days? Looking at the big picture, specifically how the issue of military forces play into the larger story of the natural environment; the destruction caused by governments projecting power with military force, and the huge ecological footprint of just maintaining large military infrastructures in peacetime, leave me of the opinion that there is no good reason to join the armed forces today. As we are seeing with the most recent homegrown terrorist plot - the FEAR Militia, who's known members were recently arrested, the enemy is not something out there, it is something created when dysfunctional men come back home and bring the war with them.

As for me personally, I did one five year stint with the Canadian Armed Forces back when I got out of high school. But for full disclosure, that was back in the 70's, there were no significant hot wars going on at the time...even U.N. peacekeeping missions which Canada used to be a major contributor to had gone quiet. So, I spent most of my five years over in West Germany waiting for that Soviet tank invasion that never arrived. For most of my adult life I have been lamenting how the Canadian Forces are ignored and disrespected; but now that we have a Conservative Prime Minister who is following the American example of posing in front of troops and using the "respect our soldiers" motif to instill the same kind of knee-jerk nationalism in Canadians that is common south of the border....I find myself wishing public attitudes turned back to the way they used to be!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:00 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5778
Location: USA
right to left wrote:
So, who are the real terrorists these days?


The ones seeking to instill terror, obviously. The USA doesn't care if another is afraid or not. It's plans, when applicable, are just to shove a boot up someone's ass.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:20 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20603
Location: Southeastern US
Terrorism is the attempt to change a policy by means of terror inducing actions, not just cause fear. That simple but significant difference seems to be lost in the discussion.

To compare a drone strike, which is about as precise as you can get, to a suicide bomber in a market that is targeting only innocent bystanders is not correct not accurate.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:31 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
Fosgate wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Personally, I don't think we should have done anything except nuke the terrorist camps and supporters on 9-11 and 12.


Agreed. Would have saved billions on top of American lives. Further, I'm not terribly concerned with collateral damage to "innocent" bystanders. You don't clip weeds, you kill them, root and all. These cultures do little other than allow terrorism to rise and thrive. They rip each other's eyeballs out for "religious infractions", and we have folks here wigging out over losing their insurance coverage to elective medical procedures. SMDH.

Quote:
I like the Ike warning, and agree that the USA is partially a corporate hegemony, and not what our founders wanted in other ways, too. Certainly not in line with Madison's Papers.


The insight of those before my time I find very interesting. They saw it coming. I see it too, it's just something an order of magnitude worse.


Unfortunately America & even Canada HAD to become involved in policing the world over the last 100 years as folks trying to stop blood shed in countries that were shedding a lot of blood and trying to impose their dictatorial will over people of other nations. Without timely intervention from the free world there would be no free world.

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:40 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
right to left wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
I see that 'animal friendly' never apologized for calling me a bomber and killer, when I saved many lives.
Then you have 'right to left' who confuses support of anti-communist forces with supporting terrorism.

Johnny, it wasn't my intention to join a forum and start swinging in the first week; but this statement you made earlier:" The USA is anti-terrorism, while Iran and others are known supporters of terrorism" can't be allowed to just stand unchallenged! The USA is anti-terrorism in the sense that it is the hub of a commercial empire that faces no major adversaries on the battlefield, so it only fears what theoreticians call asymmetrical warfare -- terrorism! And what grinds my gears is that it is called "terrorism" when the violence against mostly civilian populations is conducted by enemies of America, or American interests, while terrorism conducted by U.S. forces directly (drone warfare) or proxy forces (take your pick: the tin pot dictatorships set up by the CIA in Latin America, Africa, and many parts of Asia) is ignored if there is no press attention, or given a different label if it does show up in the news.

As for Iran...if you were objective, you would have to admit that Iran is more a victim of U.S. and Israeli terrorism than a perpetrator. I can't think of one recent terrorist incident that has been blamed on Iran by the U.S. and Israelis, which has not been shown to be either fraudulent or just plain lacking any evidence to back up the charge. While on the other hand, Iran has been subjected to terrorist assassinations of their nuclear scientists by the Israelis, and two cyber war incidents are traced right back to the Obama Administration...the same one that declared last year that they would consider any cyber attack on U.S. infrastructure as an act of war. So, who are the real terrorists these days? Looking at the big picture, specifically how the issue of military forces play into the larger story of the natural environment; the destruction caused by governments projecting power with military force, and the huge ecological footprint of just maintaining large military infrastructures in peacetime, leave me of the opinion that there is no good reason to join the armed forces today. As we are seeing with the most recent homegrown terrorist plot - the FEAR Militia, who's known members were recently arrested, the enemy is not something out there, it is something created when dysfunctional men come back home and bring the war with them.

As for me personally, I did one five year stint with the Canadian Armed Forces back when I got out of high school. But for full disclosure, that was back in the 70's, there were no significant hot wars going on at the time...even U.N. peacekeeping missions which Canada used to be a major contributor to had gone quiet. So, I spent most of my five years over in West Germany waiting for that Soviet tank invasion that never arrived. For most of my adult life I have been lamenting how the Canadian Forces are ignored and disrespected; but now that we have a Conservative Prime Minister who is following the American example of posing in front of troops and using the "respect our soldiers" motif to instill the same kind of knee-jerk nationalism in Canadians that is common south of the border....I find myself wishing public attitudes turned back to the way they used to be!


I guess you missed the 68 invasion of Czechoslovakia & 1956 in Hungry, as the free world did some serious thumb twiddling even though we all knew those folks wanted Liberty & Freedom.. Direct links to suicide bomber monetary pay outs to their surviving families & military hardware have led back to money provided out of Iraq & Iran to strife in the middle East because Iran wants the area to be a tempest in a tea pot. To pretend that isn't happening just doesn't pass the smell test.

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:44 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1352
animal-friendly wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
In the past when I served, pay was less than civilian, and people did it out of patriotism and duty. Now it is the government big pay feed bucket;
http://www.military.com/veterans-report ... ESRC=vr.nl


You mean that you were then willing to sacrifice your very, very precious life .... a life that no other than you could uniquely live ....?

At that time, you were ready to sacrifice your unique life to the "job" of fighting for an ideology? Freedom, was it? Ready to let your life go, sacrifice your life for the idea of "patriotism" and this thing called "Duty"?

Patriotism and duty are ideas which society has infringed upon you.
This will be hard on you. You will fight this. You will be mad at me.

But if you do not hold your own life as sacred (and it is), how will you ever know those you were bombing as sacred? The lives you ended were as worth living as your own.

If you value your own life .... Let's hope you do .... then you might also value the lives of others, becauuse they ARE you.

What a bunch of ignorant horse crap. You obviously never read about what I did or you would be apologizing.
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v699/ ... toffer.jpg
Then there is the troll tommee, who has his facts mixed up. The USA is anti-terrorism, while Iran and others are known supporters of terrorism.[/quote]

Quote:
I see that 'animal friendly' never apologized for calling me a bomber and killer, when I saved many lives.


Then you have 'right to left' who confuses support of anti-communist forces with supporting terrorism.
Personally, I don't think we should have done anything except nuke the terrorist camps and supporters on 9-11 and 12.
I like the Ike warning, and agree that the USA is partially a corporate hegemony, and not what our founders wanted in other ways, too. Certainly not in line with Madison's Papers.[/quote]

Whoa! I called you a "bomber and killer"? In response to what? You'll have to direct me to that statement Johnny because unless it was a response to something you directly wrote about bombing and klilling ..... I would not ever say such a thing out of the blue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:34 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1352
animal-friendly wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
In the past when I served, pay was less than civilian, and people did it out of patriotism and duty. Now it is the government big pay feed bucket;
http://www.military.com/veterans-report ... ESRC=vr.nl


You mean that you were then willing to sacrifice your very, very precious life .... a life that no other than you could uniquely live ....? At that time, you were ready to sacrifice your unique life to the "job" of fighting for an ideology? Freedom, was it? Ready to let your life go, sacrifice your life for the idea of "patriotism" and this thing called "Duty"? Patriotism and duty are ideas which society has infringed upon you.This will be hard on you. You will fight this. You will be mad at me. But if you do not hold your own life as sacred (and it is), how will you ever know those you were bombing as sacred? The lives you ended were as worth living as your own. If you value your own life .... Let's hope you do .... then you might also value the lives of others, becauuse they ARE you.

Quote:
What a bunch of ignorant horse crap. You obviously never read about what I did or you would be apologizing.

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v699/ ... toffer.jpg

Quote:
I see that 'animal friendly' never apologized for calling me a bomber and killer, when I saved many lives.


Again Johnny, I would like you to link me to the source as well as the context. It's not my practice to utter such inflammatory comments unless you .... or anyone else, has actually commented on bombing and killing. I would not utter such remarks unless you proposed them. So, did you?

Quote:
Personally, I don't think we should have done anything except nuke the terrorist camps and supporters on 9-11 and 12.


Nuke the terrorists camps? What, and killl them with a nuclear bomb? As well as decimate the countryside and urban dwellings of the terrorists' kin? Do you really need an apology for my calling you a bomber and a killer? You are an environmentalist but propose dropping nukes on terrorists camps and the people and environment that a "nuke" would decimate.

Your remarks are inflammatory and violent. I do not apologize for saying so. If this isn't who you are, then consider your manner of speech. If this incendiary spirit is what you mean to perpetuate .... then you are doing a great job. But we already have lots of people (politicians included) who are whipping up a frenzy of violence and terrorism and counter-terrorism. If you are not a bomber and killer (and the pics are nice, but don't tell your story exactly. You're the blond, right?) ..... then what IS the story behing the pics?

After your comment about nuking the terorist "camps", came this:

Quote:
"I'm not terribly concerned with collateral damage to "innocent" bystanders. You don't clip weeds, you kill them, root and all.


Of course "collateral damage" is a euphamism for killing innocent, (yes innocent!), bystanders, just as the 3,000 killed in 9/11 were "collateral damage". If this is not the kind of whipping up of unconscience violence you would like to see, then refrain from such inflammatory language. But you must see how unreasonable it is to expect an apology from me for calling you a "bomber and a killer" when that is exactly what you propose, and what you incite in others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:16 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20603
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:

Of course "collateral damage" is a euphamism for killing innocent, (yes innocent!), bystanders, just as the 3,000 killed in 9/11 were "collateral damage". If this is not the kind of whipping up of unconscience violence you would like to see, then refrain from such inflammatory language. But you must see how unreasonable it is to expect an apology from me for calling you a "bomber and a killer" when that is exactly what you propose, and what you incite in others.


No, the majority of those killed on 9/11 were targets. Only the suicide attackers were not. The target was the people and the buildings or the chosen time would have been different. That is vastly different than innocents being caught in a crossfire, or in an attack on a valid target using those innocents as a shield. The difference is vastly significant.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:39 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1352
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:

Of course "collateral damage" is a euphamism for killing innocent, (yes innocent!), bystanders, just as the 3,000 killed in 9/11 were "collateral damage". If this is not the kind of whipping up of unconscience violence you would like to see, then refrain from such inflammatory language. But you must see how unreasonable it is to expect an apology from me for calling you a "bomber and a killer" when that is exactly what you propose, and what you incite in others.


No, the majority of those killed on 9/11 were targets. Only the suicide attackers were not. The target was the people and the buildings or the chosen time would have been different. That is vastly different than innocents being caught in a crossfire, or in an attack on a valid target using those innocents as a shield. The difference is vastly significant.


"No". (as you say) I have much to say on this and will respond later. I'm not interested in getting side-tracked with my inquisitive conversation with Johnny at the moment. I am curious. The conversation has already fragmented or splintered into varying side topics. I want to hear from Johnny. And Wayne .... you've not responded to an earlier comment ... still expecting that .... so before we side-track or splinter further ....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:32 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5778
Location: USA
animal-friendly wrote:
Of course "collateral damage" is a euphamism for killing innocent, (yes innocent!)


Uh huh, the same ones who stand idly by and live amidst terrorists, which in effect allows the very fundamentalist regimes we oppose to exist in the first place. Terrorists themselves aren't around because they comprise the majority of the bunch. They're there because they're enabled by the rest of the population.

I don't know about you, but if this was happening here in my neighborhood, I'd be kicking some butts or die trying. I don't expect any less of anyone else. That's what makes living in the USA different from that of the middle east. We have a substantially lower tolerance for terrorist bulls**t.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:13 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20603
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:

Of course "collateral damage" is a euphamism for killing innocent, (yes innocent!), bystanders, just as the 3,000 killed in 9/11 were "collateral damage". If this is not the kind of whipping up of unconscience violence you would like to see, then refrain from such inflammatory language. But you must see how unreasonable it is to expect an apology from me for calling you a "bomber and a killer" when that is exactly what you propose, and what you incite in others.


No, the majority of those killed on 9/11 were targets. Only the suicide attackers were not. The target was the people and the buildings or the chosen time would have been different. That is vastly different than innocents being caught in a crossfire, or in an attack on a valid target using those innocents as a shield. The difference is vastly significant.


"No". (as you say) I have much to say on this and will respond later. I'm not interested in getting side-tracked with my inquisitive conversation with Johnny at the moment. I am curious. The conversation has already fragmented or splintered into varying side topics. I want to hear from Johnny. And Wayne .... you've not responded to an earlier comment ... still expecting that .... so before we side-track or splinter further ....



Which comment was that?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:34 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Fosgate wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Of course "collateral damage" is a euphamism for killing innocent, (yes innocent!)


Uh huh, the same ones who stand idly by and live amidst terrorists, which in effect allows the very fundamentalist regimes we oppose to exist in the first place. Terrorists themselves aren't around because they comprise the majority of the bunch. They're there because they're enabled by the rest of the population.



Same for Americans support for the IRA or is America exempt?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:55 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5778
Location: USA
tommee wrote:
Same for Americans support for the IRA or is America exempt?


Given your idea of what constitutes terrorism, we might as well go with exempt.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group