bin laden

Nothing Brings Out Patriotism More Than Killing Human Beings

Punk Johnny Cash Featured 43 Comments

They triumph and celebrate the murder of a human being. They believe victory is only found in the taking of human lives. A human being was murdered by thugs, state paid hit-men. The nation reacts with joy. They celebrate and rejoice in bloodshed. The cycle of violence continues. Three thousand lives lost to a tragedy of violence resulted in the Christian holy war which took hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Yet, nothing brings out patriotism and pride more than murder.

Murder at the twin towers, murder in Iraq, murder in Afghanistan and now murder in Pakistan all have rallied the masses to their nationalism and pride in the murderers they pay to kill other human beings. I wrote a rant in response to reading of the victims of the state a few months back in my article Yes, As a Matter of Fact I Do Hate The United States. That post remains the most popular post on this site since it has been online. I wrote of how revolting I found the murderous actions of the state. I want to add my utter disgust for the citizens who find some sort of pride and happiness in something so violent and repulsive as murder.

Many seem to believe that two wrongs make a right. They seem to believe killing is good if the killer is someone they do not like. I can feel butterflies in my stomach, a sick and irritated feeling that comes up each time I hear this vile act praised. I am not writing to justify a murderer, but I am writing to say I am repulsed by murder no matter who commits the crime. Green or blue uniforms do not somehow make murder something to be praised. I stated before and I will state again; for your sake I hope there is no God for he will not look kindly upon you.

The nationalism and patriotism people are finding in the act of murder and in violence shows just how depraved humanity can truly be. Go try to claim credit for it with your political parties, I don’t care. Blood is on the hands of every U.S. politician and tax payer who funded the rampant murder we bring the world.

Nothing could be better for this country than for each who pays for this bloodshed and supports it to be forced to attend each funeral of each victim of our violence. We should all have to hold the dying hands of the children whose bodies have been shredded and mangled by the metal manufactured by the military industrial complex. We should show images of the victims mangled bodies daily on the six 0′clock news. Instead we show pretty pictures of what we claim are ‘brave soldiers’ being honorable. The murderers are celebrated while the victims are never considered. I’m sick to my stomach. This country and it’s mindless culture is repulsive and I reject it and all who praise the war machines constant murder.

They wage holy war in the name of their holy constitution and in the name of their religion patriotism. Many believe their god wants them to kill. Terrorists are in green waving the red white and blue.

It is not over and nothing has changed. Violence perpetuates violence, the empire is just continuing on the same old path.

The Political Paradigm of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and Its Flaws

Jewish Political Studies Review October 1, 2009 | Nisan, Mordechai The Political Paradigm of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and Its Flaws A Histoiy of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, by Mark Tessler, second edition, Indiana University Press, 2009, 1018 pp.

The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War, by James L. Gelvin, new edition, Cambridge University Press, 2007, 296 pp.

Reviewed by Mordechai Nisan The last few decades have witnessed a profound change in the paradigmatic understanding of the “Arab-Israeli Conflict” as conventionally defined. The framework for popular discourse is comprised of three central political components:

1. The conflict is now termed an “Israeli-Palestinian” dispute, implying that the broader Arab regional aspects have been resolved or are no longer relevant to the equation;

2. The Palestinian national movement led by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) modified its traditional thinking toward Israel and has now accepted and recognized the Jewish State; and 3. The essential step to resolve the interminable Israeli -Pal estini an conflict lies in the establishment of a Palestinian state, thereby fulfilling the vision of a two-state solution.

Armed with these near-universally accepted principles, which have in fact guided whatever progress has occurred on the peace track since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the political accuracy and logic inherent in this paradigm appear unassailable.

Two recent books, both appearing in their second edition, attest to the academic panoply of the political rationale dominating the arena of discussion. Mark Tessler, a lecturer at the University of Michigan and scholar on a wide-range of Middle Eastern subjects, has written a sweeping, comprehensive, and exceptionally lucid history of “the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Tessler defines his approach as bound by “objectivity without detachment,” and this is an accurate self-revelation. His text is detailed and balanced, buoyed by countless footnoted source materials. This single volume thoroughly expounds the development of Zionism and the Jewish yishuv, the Arab Revolt, and the United Nations Partition Resolution, followed by detailed accounts of the events of 1948 and the political aftermath with the evolution of the Palestinian Resistance Movement and the complexities attending “Israel and the Occupied Territories.” In its review of peace efforts in the 1980s it discusses the Reagan Plan, the Fez Plan, the Shultz Plan, the Shamir Plan, the Mubarak Plan, and the Baker Plan, culminating chronologically, if not essentially, with the Oslo peace process. However, after the spectacular launching in 1993, this process “ultimately failed,” concludes Tessler (847). website israeli palestinian conflict

The author’s impressive tome reflects precisely what he judges to be the symmetry in Jewish and Arab national histories, while at the same time highlighting the contrast between the ancient foundations of the Jewish “sense of peoplehood” (Tessler, 7) and the recent twentieth-century “emergence of Palestinian nationalism and sense of Palestinian peoplehood” (Tessler, 72). Different national narrative pasts merge politically, nonetheless, in our times.

James Gelvin, teaching history of the Middle East at UCLA, has written a far more nuanced study. The study’s ostensibly evenhanded title The Israel-Palestine Conflict contorts reality rather than reflecting it. The work focuses on the question of modern nationalism based on narratives and mythologies. It identifies Zionism’s success with British support, juxtaposed with the Palestinian struggle which over the generations has been characterized by the “guerrilla war” launched by Izz al-Din al-Qassam in the 1930s (Gelvin, 103), and the “consensusbuilding” and moderate leadership of Yasir Arafat that typified the Palestinian icon’s deft political transformation in the 1980s. Gelvin details the rapid flow of war/peace landmarks in twenty-first century events, including the al-Aqsa Intifada (2000), Operation Defensive Shield (2002), the Separation Barrier (2003), the Gaza Disengagement (2005), and the Olmert Convergence Plan (2006). Much sound and fury, with stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, concludes the author, lie at the end of the road.

Both authors, Tessler more mildly and Gelvin more vindictively, place the blame for the political standoff upon Israel. The use of terminology such as “the occupied territories” and the definition of West Bank settlements as an “obstacle” to peace exhibit standard pietism. Yet the compelling argument ?^??f???^ and propelling this approach cannot be ignored blithely. A Palestinian state in Judea/ Samaria and Gaza would address the Arab demographic realities on the ground coupled with the potential for Israeli-Palestinian political accommodation. By completely withdrawing from the West Bank, Israel would address the Palestinians’ national-political demands. It may be pointed out that alleged Palestinian moderation, though sullied by the rise of Hamas with its Islamic agenda and jihad ethos, is conventionally contrasted with Israeli obstinacy in these works. in our site israeli palestinian conflict

Two alternative explanations can be proposed to explain the impasse. One relates to the objective parameters characterizing the political paralysis: the tiny geographic size of the country in which the aspirations and growth of the two national communities must be satisfied; the complexity, rather than criminality, of the Jewish settlement enterprise across the land; and the intermixing of the Jewish- Arab populations in the Jerusalem urban metropolis. A second explanation relates to the explicit Palestinian objection to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Both prime ministers Olmert and Netanyahu demanded this acceptance from the PLO/PA, while the latter’s adamant and consistent refusal suggests the deception and ambiguity of the entire Oslo process. Mainstream Palestinian personalities still unabashedly declare in 2009 that “peace is a means, the goal is Palestine”; that “the Fatah movement [of Arafat and Abbas] does not recognize Israel even today”; and that “the current [my emphasis] political program is to say that we want the 1967 borders.”1 The entire political edifice of the Oslo paradigm, based on PLO moderation and the two-state prescription, is challenged by the inherent logic embedded in the sacred doctrine of rogue Palestinian nationalism, and also in the transient character of a political solution limited only to the post-67 borders. Indeed, a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip may be less than a political solution for the Palestinian problem and more of a “final solution” to the Jewish problem. Perhaps sentimental optimism may eventually give way to a stroke of realism in consideration of such political affairs.

There are those who have remained doggedly committed to the Oslo process as the only option on the table concerning Israeli withdrawal and expanded Palestinian rule on the road to statehood.2 Others have concluded that the process is flawed by the failure of the Palestinians in the “state-building” enterprise since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994. Violence, corruption, and factionalism on the one hand, and the persistence of exclusive uncompromising national ambitions on the other, have marred the effort – and virtually thwarted it.3 Yet another opinion argues that the two-state approach is fundamentally immoral because Israel’s very founding was illegitimate; and therein is the crux of the problem. According to one author, the PLO was born not to end the Israeli occupation of 1967 but rather “to rectify the evils of 1948″ with the dispossession of the Palestinians from their land.4 Views abound, though no solution is found. There are those who believe that the Palestinians lost their right to a state, and others who believe that Israel never had a right to be a state.

Oslo constituted a historical breakthrough which inaugurated agreements, understandings, meetings, and negotiations between two rivals over the same land. A host of problems erupted – one of the primary ones being the wave of Palestinian terrorism against the Israeli population, another Palestinian frustration over Jewish settlement expansion in Judea and Samaria. Estrangement and bitterness followed, and there ensued a political breakdown which persists to this day.

A new political paradigm for conflict-resolution will arise and acquire public support only when, after stages of disappointment and disintegration of cooperative efforts, the inability of the old paradigm to solve the problem at issue is recognized. The two-state solution seems neat and simple, but is unworkable. The Palestinians and the Israelis both want more than the 1967 lines offer; neither is willing to consider those lines as their optimal choice. To repeatedly affirm the two-state solution, as practiced by Presidents Bush and Obama, in no way confirms the validity of the idea. The new paradigm will presumably posit not two states – Israel and Palestine – west of the Jordan River, but only one, meaning that there will not be a third state between Israel and Jordan. The one-state solution will forge in new ways the parameters of its social-demographic and political-constitutional makeup.

Mark Tessler has written a worthwhile, informative, and educational book; James Gelvin has authored a tract impaired by numerous errors of fact. Among them, he identifies Herzl as a “Zionist pioneer” (Gelvin, 276) when he was a theorist and leader; states that the Palmach (265) was bom in the days of the Great Arab Revolt of 1936-9 (“Arab Revolt” would be sufficient) when in fact it was founded in 1 94 1 ; claims that the Husaini family never engaged in land sales to the Zionists (110) when the facts speak otherwise;5 writes that Rav Kook was the Chief Rabbi of the yishuv until the 1940s (190), when he died in 1935; and that Prime Minister Begin appointed Ariel Sharon as defense minister in 1977 (242), although it was in fact Ezer Weizman who initially served in that post. The blunders and bias in this book begin with its title, and continue throughout the volume.

There are many good-willed Israelis and Palestinians who live the experience of coexistence in the shared social space they inhabit and in which they work and interact. The diplomatic enterprise often ignores the daily realm of human reality, but it is there that maybe one day the solution – perhaps a very surprising one – will be found.

[Author Affiliation] DR. MORDECHAI NISAN teaches Middle East studies at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Nisan, Mordechai

Punk Johnny CashNothing Brings Out Patriotism More Than Killing Human Beings

Comments 43

  1. Anonymous

    Alright, here’s the thing. I think it’s great that you have such an open and clear understanding of your outlook. But what do you think you’re accomplishing by spreading hate? Is that any less destructive than spreading fear?

  2. Anonymous

    Not everybody in the red, white, and blue as you call it (United States) signs up to kill people. That is their job and they do it to protect their lives. If they don’t shoot to kill the enemy will. As a former Marine and friend to many who have served overseas and those still serving, they are doing a job that is worth while. I don’t see you volunteering to change things or make peace. Other than you writing your blog… Yes, these men and women are told what to do and if they disobey they spend time in jail and may lose their careers. Yes, we celebrate the death of a tyrant and a mass murderer. Although this may not be the end of the war, it is a positive move forward for this country to take away the life of somebody who has taken so many from ours. He was not an innocent man and not everybody who has died has been innocent either. If your so worried about the victims then advocate for our troops to come home, find other ways to react to people when they have attacked a nation, and quit hiding behind your blogs.

  3. Anonymous

    I know that the author is a former Marine. My statement to you is not about you giving service to this country. It is about choosing to change things in a different manner. Being part of the military doesn’t give you a voice. Those who have served know that. I am talking about advocating for a different way. We all want our troops home, but we must collaborate in an effort to come up with resolutions that offer an alternative. Instead we are so fast to get angry and talk crap. This is an easy way out. I am in no way saying that what we are doing is right from a moral standpoint rather stating that if we plan to change things we have to be proactive. On more levels than just what we are doing here. Yes, I do see the presidents and any other leader in the same light, they all are trying to do what they think is best for their people. I am merely stating my opinion. We will still continue to mourn, but this death is the same as a murder in prison on death row. We praise that the same way.

    1. Anonymous

      I have never a praised a death of a murderer on death row. I would never praise, or delight in the death of human. No matter what they have done. I am not involved in that “we.”

      I am not exactly sure what how you want to advocate for a different way. This blog is advocating for change. You may call it an easy way out, but what other way would you like to have voices heard? Vote? That works. Protest? That works. Petitions? Those always work. I would like to know what the manner is that you would like things to be changed in. This is an article stating that people should not triumph and celebrate death. We all understand that our troops are “doing their job” that would have them “spend time in jail or lose their careers” if they disobeyed. That is the point. It is a sad truth that we pay people to murder. I want our troops home, you want our troops home. There is nothing we can do about it, other than take the easy way out and write on a blog. When it comes down to it, what collaborative effort are we going to head up? We have to trust that the “government” will do it for us. Even when we make our voices heard through voting, protesting, petitions, etc…at the end of the day, they decide.

  4. Anonymous

    I am not saying that you praise or celebrate any death. I am stating that as a society this is how it is viewed. I find it disheartening that we are bound to such limits that we have no choice in how things go. You are right at the end of the day it isn’t up to us. I am using generalizations of how society looks at things. Protesting and all the other methods you spoke about are all methods of trying to advocate. I just wish that there was a way to make it happen rather then sit here and hope that it does. Hope the right person reads enough and sees what this countries people want. Unfortunately, many of the people could care less as long as it doesn’t involve them. Thanks for your responses and continued support. This is a going to be a difficult time and I hope they see it that way.

  5. BanTshirts

    If people would just accept the news that OBL is dead and move on then I could accept that. But no, we have to have coverage of idiots celebrating in the street, and endless bad, poor taste comments about his death. Violence begets violence. Remember how you felt when you saw some Muslims celebrating after 9/11? They thought 9/11 was payback. Americans think this is payback for 9/11. They think they are right, Americans think they are right. Them. Us. Friend. Enemy. Celebrating death is for fools, the government should be looking at what they have done that has created this hatred and start making big changes to foreign (and domestic) policy.

  6. Lydia

    What? Did the rumble of the twin towers crumbling to dust shake you away momentarily from your Pokemon game 10 years ago? Still pissed off? Maybe you should spend some time listening to the stories of the families of terrorist victims. Take a trip to the sites where people were busy with their everyday lives then cut down in their tracks by some rich brat who hated. A rich brat who killed women, children and men to press his own agenda. Oh, and I’m not talking about George W. here…just so you are clear. When did self-acclaimed terrorist organizations such as Al-Quaida stand around to be taken into custody for a fair trial? Sorry…if someone is shooting at me, I shoot back. If someone bombs my homeland….some of us are not cowards hiding behind our X-boxes.

      1. Lydia

        Bullshit, I don’t believe that you could have been a Marine when the two towers fell and feel the way you do now. If by some strange series of events you have made this transition form Marine to Anarchist, I must ask, Why did you sign up? Did you not understand that you would be killing and put in harm’s way? I say bullshit again if that is the case. There was and is no draft as there was when I was your age, when young men went over to Vietnam under duress and came home in a body bag or alive and subject to the same derision and harassment that you are spewing.

        As the mother of a permanently disabled retired Marine and a Navy Intelligence Specialist, I find it difficult to believe that you did not have some rec time….the only time my marine was unable to rec was during his 13 week recruit training. They joined up because they wanted to fight for the freedom that enables you to post this bullshit. The miraculous has occurred via the internet press, Twitter, and Facebook as an enabling medium for the peoples of oppressed totalitarian governments (i. e. Libya, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan) to realize that there is a different life out there…one of freedom of choice. I follow Wikileaks, I am a pacifist…until someone starts shooting or bombing me. I abhor the political machine the religious right has built…but your diatribe is sophomoric and ludicrous. Find another way to persuade…your words only move me to be your opposition.

    1. (re)becca ツ

      “A rich brat who killed women, children and men to press his own agenda.”

      Kind of like, oh, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, George Bush I, Bill Clinton, George Bush II, Barack Obama…

      … just to name a few.

        1. (re)becca ツ

          Why should I leave? Because it’s wrong for me to point out the wrongdoings of the United States government? Perhaps if you don’t like people voicing their opposing views and opinions (and “posting bullshit), then maybe YOU should be the one to leave.

          1. Lydia

            “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right say it,” Written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, (1868 – after 1939),[1] who wrote under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyren. It was just a suggestion…you seem unhappy with the government here. Why torture yourself here amidst all this imperialistic squalor when you could be torturing terrorists with your happy thoughts from the inside of a buraq?

          2. (re)becca ツ

            Maybe it’s because I like the scenery here. Or it could be because I prefer to “torture” people like you from where I am now. Then again, it could be because it’s not as easy as people like you seem to think it is to just pack up and leave. Your kind always do that. Whenever someone says anything remotely against your ideas the first thing you retort with is to “leave if you don’t like it here.” No further discussion as to what was addressed, no debating points. The opposing view is just told to simply leave.

            And since we seem to like quotes, here’s one for you:

            “It is forbidden to kill – therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” Written by Voltaire, real name François-Marie Arouet.

          3. Lydia

            Ahhh…trite and flippant as your responses initially appear, finally a truth comes out. You have found the one thing that will really irritate people your parent’s age: passive aggressive terrorism. Too hard to pick up and move or are you too busy with your “”pithy posts, texts and flirtations with Anarchist to get and hold a real job long enough to save up the money to move to sunny Pakistan? Good Job (re)becca ツ You probably text and drive too…don’t ya? Come on….don’t hold back…tell the truth!
            Actually, I welcome your vents…say on. It has been very cathartic for me to respond. Thank you for that. I only hope that somewhere in the next twenty years when you have children and see them grow up to disdain the things that you have taught them to value…you will have at least learned the meaning of this word: Objectivity.

          4. (re)becca ツ

            I thought long and hard (not really, maybe all of 30 seconds) before deciding to reply to you, because my mother always taught me to ignore immature actions of others and make them come up to my level. But, being that I quite enjoy stupid “arguments” with people who like to turn up their nose at me because I don’t think the way they think that I should, and being that I am opinionated as hell (not to mention the fact that I sometimes need to have the last word) I just had to respond. Besides, it’s funny.

            Ms. Lydia (can I call you that?), I can see you have lost all basis for your original point and have decided to turn this into an attack on me personally instead of an attack on my ideas. This means that you have no logical basis for your original argument anymore. Basically, you “lost.” You have nothing else to say, but in an effort to “win,” you will start attacking the person you think that I am instead of my ideas. That alone should be enough for me to just be done with you, but being that I have some pent up aggression for reasons that have nothing to do with your lack of objectivity (hey! I used that word too!), I decided to release some of my stress in a response that you really don’t even deserve.

            First of all, I don’t hold the opinions that I hold because I have this desire to piss off authority, or my parents for that matter. I have left the need to piss them off in the past, around 1997 when I graduated high school at the age of 17. In fact, it just may surprise you that my parents raised me to be a non-conformist. You know, to be an individual. Question everything. Form my own opinions. Things like that. Not just politically, but with everything. Now, before you ask, I will answer: no, my parents and step parents are not anarchist. They’re actually quite Republican. They don’t like my opinions on many issues, but they respect my ability to have them.

            Secondly, the job I have now has been my job for the past 7 years. This may shock you, but I own my own home and my own car. I have a daughter as well, who just turned 6 today. She also has my independent streak, and I am instilling strong values in her. I am not teaching her to be an anarchist. She will be intelligent and a strong enough person to form her own opinions in life. Right now, I am more focused on teaching her to be compassionate, understanding and independent. She will be able to do anything and think anything she wants.

            Apparently you don’t understand that people don’t have the ability to move to whatever country they feel like moving to. If I could, I would not be living in this country. I would either be over in England with my fiancé, or I would be in Italy (it’s absolutely gorgeous there). Not that I really need to explain all of that to you… It has nothing to do with my disdain for this country, but it has everything to do with where I would rather be, not because I prefer their government but because I find it more appealing there. I’m a student of history, see, so to be amongst the historical presence there is quite enjoyable.

            No, I don’t text and drive because that’s just stupid. I do sing loudly and curse at crazy drivers though. Occasionally I may eat a burger when I’m short on time, drink some water. And I wear my seatbelt. Anything else you would like to know about my driving?

            I do like how you said I support passive-aggressive terrorism. Is this because I’m against war? Because I don’t think any government should have the right to wage their wars in our name in order to promote their agenda? Because I find that the killing of innocents no matter what government does it is appalling? What seemed to set you off is when I listed various American presidents that oversaw the killing of innocent people all to promote their idea for what the world should be. What gives them (and you, for that matter) the right to determine whose life is more valuable than others? Were the Native Americans no more human than you or I? Not according to the United States government, who wanted to expand their reach, and who continue to treat them like shit. I guess you think as the United States government thought (think?) that Panamanians, Hondurans, Vietnamese, Japanese, Iraqis, Afghans, et. al. don’t deserve life either if they get in the way of their agenda. And you think I’m horrible for questioning it all. How silly of you.

            So, I ask you again: If you don’t like the fact that people like me live in this country, why aren’t you leaving?

          5. Lydia

            Let me break it down for you, (re)becca. I believe you initiated the attack on me with this comment: “Your kind always do that.” Always and never…strong words from an entity with only 5 tangible senses. You do not know anything about me at all yet you “attacked” as if you did. And I returned “fire”! Sort of sucks when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine, doesn’t it? That is all I was doing. Granted, objectivity is never the objective of yellow journalism or its muck rakers. Ha ha…but I made you look the word up to seek its journalistic context didn’t I?

            Your reply is very touching but very wordy and confusing at points. When you said this, “So I ask you again:”, I could not figure out what you were referencing. Scroll back and read, please, because I cannot seem to find where you asked me about my leaving this country the first time. Seems like a lame thing to ask even once as I love this country and the people in it even when they are delusional. Can you love that unconditionally, Miss (re)becca or Mr. JohnnyCashPunk? (Johnny Cash has to be rolling over in his grave with that snatched avatar.) My objective here is to make someone (you) look harder, maybe harder than an attention span of 30 seconds will permit, but, I believe you can do it. :)

            The funny thing is, we are most probably of like mind. I just want good government and a safe place to live for everyone. I’m realistic enough to know that this objective will always be dynamic and in process. I will never see perfection of this objective in my lifetime yet I continue to try to make an existing system a good one for our children. Too bad we cannot work together toward that goal.

            Find peace.

          6. (re)becca ツ

            I really don’t know why I’m even bothering. I really don’t. But, alas, I will.

            Grouping you in with your obvious brethren is not a personal attack. “Your kind,” being the “kind” that will always – yes, ALWAYS (I don’t care how strong the word is) will tell people who disagree with the government to leave the country if we don’t like it. I’ve encountered enough of “your kind” in my life. You’re the one who said it, so yes, I put you in with that group. The first bit of drivel you posted on here was a personal attack, so don’t try to play this holier-than-thou role you’re trying to assume. Being that I’m able to put 2 and 2 together, how can you not think that I don’t know anything about you? You’re a patriotic, flag waving American with a child that’s a disabled Marine who told me to leave if I don’t like the government. It didn’t really take long for me to figure out all I needed to know about you when it came to the topic of discussion. If anything, you’re being hypocritical when you say “you attacked first” as you posted personal attacks before I even posted anything.

            Being that one of the first things covered in my mass communications class my first semester of college back in 1997 was objectivity in the media, I didn’t need to look up what “objectivity” means in the journalistic sense. But if it makes you feel like you have some kind of intellectual superiority over a “delusional” (that’s the word you used to describe me, right?) anarchist, go ahead and think that I had to look it up. I do want to let you know, however, that I don’t think that a theme-based opinion website really needs to follow journalistic objectivity.

            Oh… hint: I didn’t really ask you why you weren’t the one leaving the country… in my wordy, confusing reply. (Too much for you to take in at once? I apologize. I just thought that if I laid it all out for you in one shot, it would keep you from needlessly trying to do a “gotcha” and failing like you had before.) Also, perhaps it’s because I “looked harder” at things that I realize the thoughts I once had have now changed. If you’re trying to change my mind, you have failed. Not because I don’t want to read what you have to say, or even read your opinions on things, but because you have turned this from something that could have been a discussion of ideas into a “blah blah blah your kid will grow up to hate what you taught why don’t you move to Pakistan you immature terrorist” discussion. Well, now that I think about it, we never really were having a discussion of ideas. All you’ve done was bring unintelligent spewing to a topic that could have potentially been a very interesting discussion.

            You want a good government. I don’t trust the government. I say something about former heads of said government, you tell me I should move. Now you’re regretting that we can’t work together. Well….. yeah….. That’d work out well.

            Now, if you’d excuse me, I have more important things to worry about than continuing some stupid discussion about absolutely nothing with someone who can’t even answer questions posed to them, therefore only making this some sort of “I can be more snarky than you” thing.

          7. Michael

            I would just like to chime in (even though I may be slightly biased) and add that as a reader, I’ve found both Lydia’s and Rebecca’s comments on this topic to be quite diminutive and sarcastic.
            However I would like to add that fighting insults with insults isn’t the way to go about things (just like fighting violence with violence). Instead I’d like to (hopefully) end this by saying that you two are most likely  genuine good people at heart, and that disagreeing about something isn’t the end of the world.
            I would like to finish my comment (as the anarchist I am) by advising Lydia to just scrutinize everything that comes out of the Media and other government channels. I hope your sons will never be the victim of violence ever again.

  7. Anonymous

    I have to wonder about those that advocate for no murder at all… it creates a paradox.
    Take the following hypothetical scenario:
    20 people are about to die… you pick the method. Say they are confined to a room with a bomb inside it. One man, outside the room, has a button to detonate the bomb. He has made every indication that he is about to push the button. You are outside of running distance from him and the only way to stop him is by shooting and killing him. Do you do it? Would you consider yourself “good” for having done it? (of course, you wouldnt have done it if you didnt think it was the good thing to do).

    So now suppose he has already pushed the button, and slain 20 innocent people in the room, and is running away. Do you shoot him now?

    Where do you draw the line? Because if you didn’t stop the man in the first scenario because you believe murder is wrong, well, I don’t think you and I will ever see eye to eye.

    1. Michael

      In the bombers point of view (in the scenario you’ve presented) the people he is about to murder are enemies to him. He feels they’re responsible for the the invasion of his country, the stealing and raping of his land, as well as the death of his people. In your eyes you see him a murderer, in another person’s eyes he is a defender, a freedom fighter.
      I’m not defending the view that he has the right to kill. I do not condone murder committed from either side. But it’s a bit ridiculous for someone to think of marines as defenders, and the terrorists as murderers. Don’t you think?
      Ask yourself this question, and tell me what you think. Do you think that these suicide bombing terrorists are blowing themselves up just for fun? Do you honestly think they are doing it for no good reason? Because when I ask myself this question I know that this suicide bomber is doing what he thinks is right and just.

      Now next time you blame a “terrorist” for blowing up Americans, you should very well be blaming the U.S. government for instigating that very act of terror.

  8. Malik Miran Bux

    In case anyone forgets only an insane person will think about attacking USA. The USA has the biggest arsenal of nuclear and bio-chemical weapons in the world. If the USA were really were attacked, the retaliation would be so devastating that the country which attacked would not be around for more than a few minutes after it has attacked. Missiles flying at the speed of 15,000 miles per hour would hit the targeted country. The USA intelligence network is designed to know exactly what its biggest rival Russia is thinking. Osama bin Laden hence is insignificant. The USA does not need its soldiers to fight anywhere all targets can be destroyed with the least effort. But the USA needs to fight wars so that it can improve its conventional weapons. The US weapon makers need to sell new improved ways to kill people. The weapon makers have products which most countries in the world can ill afford, unless the US military can buy them. These ‘new improved’ weapons are no different than the previous ones. Stealth weapons have been introduced. If anyone were to attack the USA – it would be secret, it would be a target of strategic importance, so it will be a military installation. When that happens it becomes top secret. Casualty figures do not exist because the military does not exchange information that freely. So what is the best way to make the American public rise and want war – destroy a building which is very well known and has lots of people in it. To make even more spectacular make two planes crash into it.

  9. Rhetta

    sooo what would you suggest you do with a Inhumane non man such as OSAMA!!!??? Give him counciling and waste hundreds upon thousands in security to keep him protected and alive???? SMUAH on that… YOU KNOW TERRIOST are not human and shoul…d not be treated as such…JUST GO HUG YOUR TREES and seek counciling for this terriost being killed…. I know I dont need counciling for that one.. how dare you try to turn or say such BLAH BLAH BLAH…BLACK SHHEEEEEEPPPP…. GFYS!!!!!!!KEEPING A TERRIOST ALIVE WOULD CREATE MORE VIOLENCE THAN HIM WHERE HE IS AT NOW>>> the only thing his death has done was make me disbelieve my goverment even more with all thier lies and so called secrets… smuah

  10. John Mann

    I mean… if you guys want to go over there and try to reason with them, please go ahead. I will await your return results with an open mind… if you return at all. I agree that violence should be the LAST action to solve any problem, but there are some people you just cant stop without it. Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Joseph Stalin, just to name a few. These people are all not right in the head. You can’t reason with them no matter how hard you try. If a dog has rabies, what else can you do? It attacks and attacks, infecting others with its violence. The only way to stop it is to put it down.

    1. Michael

      You forgot to add the President of the United States to your list. And according to your logic one must retaliate against such people. Therefore you shouldn’t complain when people retaliate against the U.S.

Leave a Reply