DivineComedy

I wish for the war to be over, and for all of us to be able to have some peace. And I have no illusions, for I know that we have canine teeth and our eyes are in front to better judge distance to the nut tree. I wish we could stop fighting over the nuts. Because of the nature of man weapons are necessary for freedom and real peace, education is necessary for knowing when and how to use those weapons, and common sense is necessary for identifying the enemy we must fight; we must fight the “war on terror” for the sake of civilization and nations of the people.

It would be nice if the United Nations (of tyrants too) was to “take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace“: to stop a nation’s warplanes from illegally bombing a country, to stop occupation of peaceful peoples, to stop genocide, etc. What a lofty goal to eventually beat those military weapons into plowshares, so that there can be peace between nations! As long as man is not free in his nation, or able to find some freedom in another nation, or one man has more nuts than another, it is a given that there will be belligerence and weapons. In 2003 when I condemned a professed “liberal” Democrat for saying that terrorists are “playing by the rules of warfare,“ the professor with the Philosophically Handicapped Degree in political science said that it is starkly true that, “one man's freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.“ And then the PHD went on to say, “The Colonists were terrorists.” As I sit here drinking my tea, I guess dressing up like Indian savages to dump tea in the harbor must have been terror, but mostly against the Indians (if the British were stupid), or it could have just been a drunken foolishness. The PHD in political science said, “The ‘good cause‘ is determined by who wins the war,” then explains it as “history is written by the victors.” So much more should be our resolve. Since the time of Aristotle, and beyond, the mark of a free man has been his right to bear arms outside of a Spartan military regime; the measure of a free man is his respect for other opinions. Arrogance demands compliance to one opinion and rejects any other culturally free state; the rights of man (and woman) at the basest demand our lives and liberty not be forfeited to the tyranny of those that abuse our trust. Civilian clothes as a weapon is an enemy that threatens all humans, regardless of their opinion. The sword and the shield, wielded by the human with a contrary opinion, threatens only those humans standing in their way, be they military or their civilian supporters. Because of the nature of man weapons are necessary for freedom, as there will always be fights over the nuts (or the tea), but freedom can never be the “good cause” if weapons are “civilians” in our midst.

The good cause of the United Nations says one of its purposes is to, “develop friendly relations among people [sic] based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.“ Along that vein I would like for us to respect one another so that we can choose civilian status and go to work, the marketplace, and the religious institution without fear of a civilian clothed bomber (whose “own ideas” of justice give him “good” cause to blow us up). It has been said that occupation creates terrorists or justifies them, that is how it happens, and I submit that is only true if the enemy is from Alpha Centauri (and bent on the destruction of all humans) or there is a moral rot at the core belief of the potential terrorist. On October 29, 2001, Saddam said, “when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice…according to their own ideas.” The terrorists’ apologists on this message board and elsewhere tell us that “you fight with your possibilities,” or “Terrorist groups fight with the weapons they have available.” Well, I have a beef too...and the debt to prove it. The person without airplanes, tanks and the like with which to fight gets a visit from the detective, and sees a parole officer, for expressing in words what the aggrieved would like to do to the stinking usurers that fornicated with the spouse behind the head of Aristotle’s household management. I wish people would get an education, read the laws, understand the laws, call for good laws, even if they have to get that education on their own. But, mostly, I wish people would think. Freedom requires knowledge and consent (see what President George Washington had to say about the Whiskey Rebellion {don‘t be lazy, look it up}).

President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor (1977 to 1981) Zbigniew Brzezinski says in the Washington Post article “Terrorized by 'War on Terror' How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America,” that using the phrase “war on terror,” “actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics,” like Jerry Falwell, the French Socialists (who burn cars to combat global warming), or James Carville {just sarcastically kidding}. The PHD in 2003 said, “The Afghans that we supported against the Soviets were terrorists (still are, have you noticed?).” Yes Sir, I remember, I swore my oath to protect and defend the constitution in front of a picture of Jimmy Carter {said like Cotter Pin} and I was in the military in 1979. And Brzezinski says in that article that, “Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.” I can’t wait to imagine the next Democratic, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, or Republican National Conventions, etc., when all the fanatics are gathered together in their respective fanatical congregations. This high school graduate of an open campus, and Georgia born cracker, says that common sense dictates that one man’s fanatic is another man’s freedom fighter. I suppose we should Imagine us living all as one where there’s no Heaven, countries, possessions, or obvious self-determination, in a mindless commune, where Gort keeps the peace. "Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!” The specific enemy of civilization is not the bombing of Dresden, the nuking of Hiroshima, the divine wind or Kamikaze, the KKK, or Al Quacka, or the Irish Republican Army, or any Religious fundamentalist, etc. We all believe we have “good cause,” and I am sure that JB Stoner (non-suicidal church bomber/terrorist) believed he had his good cause, as did Lester Maddox when I met that nice man on a field trip to the Governor’s mansion. The specific enemy of civilization may not be the moronic dreamer that would have Imagine living under tyranny for “peace,” but in reality, knowing the nature of mankind, the specific enemy is any tyranny including the mini-tyrant (terrorist).

Because of the nature of man weapons are necessary for freedom and real peace, education is necessary for knowing when and how to use those weapons, and common sense is necessary for identifying the enemy we must fight; we must fight the “war on terror” for the sake of civilization and nations of the people. For us to have domestic peace we must fight the “war on terror,” with a terrible resolve, with military weapons of warfare, education, and common sense. We should pull the beam out of our own eye before we relish with glee in the percentage of domestic Muslims that believe that terrorism is “play by the rules of warfare.” How ridiculous the freedom, of lifting the veil and bending over to remove the “rock, chewing gum and thin wire filament” from the rectum, a freedom for reasonable searches and intrusion into our persons, houses, and effects! The specific enemy of civilization must be the thief in the night, the pointy hooded night rider, the stealth bomber without a return address, the tyrant, and the “civilian” terrorist including those with a salami bomb shoved up their vagina or butt hole; also, the specific enemy must be all those that support and defend terrorism: you’re either with us (civilian status, that doesn‘t go boom), or you’re against us (civilian status, that doesn‘t go boom). {I guess that makes me a Sith in the eyes of Obi-Wan Kenobi.}


{I suppose this is just fleeting vomit into the wind ruled by the principalities and powers of the air.}

__________________
“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

Yeah, a wall and a border patrol will protect us. {sound of laughter}

DivineComedy

Appendix “A:”

The belief expressed by Abraham Lincoln that no black should ever be in a position of power over a white could have been a deliberate lie to prevent losing states like Kentucky, but, even if it wasn’t his belief, such sentiments would not be the specific enemy of civilization itself. Racism and Religious supremacy however reprehensible to our modern and “enlightened” sensibilities, are not in and of themselves a specific enemy of civilization. The KKK and Al Quacka could just as easily have become political parties, respectively supporting white supremacy (or separation of races) and Islamic supremacy (or separation of religious regions). Then they could have acquired states, land, resources, planes, tanks, and declared war according to the rules of warfare. Although it seems unlikely, due to their black stone idolatrous mental illness of talking to rocks and trees, even Hamas could become a political party that does not support terrorism. Do I need to mention the bombing of the hotel where the British were? No, there is no need for that fair and balanced approach.

The Communist (Christian, believing in redistribution of income) may be just as reprehensible to the Libertarian (Atheist, believing that if charity isn‘t enough that is tough), but as long as both parties do not use terrorism or tyranny, both parties could actually have a democratic state living next to each other in peace. It is the acquisition and maintenance of the state though terror, like when the quasi “Libertarian” justified terrorism and said it would be time to go “BOOM” should Al Gore get elected, that is the problem. John Lennon’s imagining of a perfect Communist state was not a specific enemy of civilization, but the man that shot him was (forgetting the insanity).

As weapons become more powerful, more portable, and cheaper, the threat to civilization from terror increases exponentially more than the threat of nations possessing immense power. I don’t believe technology can’t be stopped, but freedoms can, and if we don’t do everything to stop terrorist ideology, and tyranny, it could literally become the end of the world.

{I wish the ocean would calm down, so I could go do some floating.}

Khayembii Communique

You could say the same thing with the "war on drugs". Look how well that's done.

I'm confused. Are you talking about the United States here? Sure sounds like you are.

You mean an organization that doesn't wear uniforms is a "threat to humanity"? How the hell does that make sense?

Which nature is that?

History has proven you wrong so many times I lost count. You're basically saying that, regardless of the tactics used, resistance struggles are always caused by immoral people bent on the destruction of humanity. Your analysis of historical events is a joke. You might as well just blame it on "evil".

Yeah, resistance movements should appeal to legal means - means which are controlled and enforced by the oppressors! That'll change a lot!

I wish you would think.

Terrorist is a vague undefinable term that is basically an empty phrase used to appeal to emotion.

This is obviously true. Calling someone a terrorist because they use the tactic of terrorism makes about as much sense as calling someone a "shoot-and-scoot-ist". It's ridiculous.

All political movements are "tyrannous". Saying the enemy of humanity is "tyranny" is false for that very reason.

1. The "war on terror" is a vague and subjective term.
2. Defining who is a "terrorist" and who isn't is a vague and subjective term.
3. The "war on terror" is being fought to protect American interests and not to protect "civilization". I know it's hard for you to believe that there are civilized countries out there that aren't the United States, but it's true.

Again, this is an empty statement that could be interpreted in an infinite number of ways depending on how you define the term "war on terror". Is the invasion and occupation of Iraq part of the "war on terror"? If so, how? Was Iraq harboring active "terrorists"? If not, then why not go into a country that actually is harboring "terrorists" such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia (hint: because they're US allies)? If the US was really interested in fighting a "war on terror" then they would have invaded a country that actually was harboring "terrorists", and they most certainly wouldn't be allied with states that are doing so. I think it's painfully obvious that this argument you've presented is blatantly false and is merely a propaganda tool used to further American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Again a false dichotomy. It's interesting that you constantly talk about the need to defend "civilization". How would you define civilization? The US?

Christianity is on about the same level as Islam with regards to its "barbarity". As is every religion.

Communists are atheists. Where the hell did you get the idea that they're Christian? That's pretty stupid.

The state isn't maintained through terror. The state is the means by which the perpetuation of a specific form of class society is maintained.

Basically you're saying that everyone can have thoughts but not act on them? Or they can't use violent means to act on them? What about in a situation when they themselves are violently oppressed? Do you consent to their resistance or must they just accept the conditions of their oppression?

Again, define civilization and terror.

It's interesting you bring up the term "ideology". Ideology is a world-view developed and maintained by an individual through the interactions with their environment. As such, the various ideologies held in the middle east are due to the environment in which these people live. This includes US policy towards that region.

Sergeant Stinger1

________
It was too long to read everything.
Does it say that Bush screwed up and that a wall, fences on our border and patrols with guns drawn is the solition?
If it does then I agree!

__________________
I guess bush and the Repukes won cause Americans are totaly SCREWED!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AMERICAN ARMED FORCES, THE BEST IN THE WORLD

DivineComedy

Appendix “B:”

Old liberal laws for your consideration:

“Considering that, while seeking means to preserve peace and prevent armed conflicts among nations, it is likewise necessary to have regard to cases where an appeal to arms may be caused by events which their solicitude could not avert;
Animated by the desire to serve, even in this extreme hypothesis, the interests of humanity and the ever increasing requirements of civilization;
Thinking it important, with this object, to revise the laws and general customs of war, either with the view of defining them more precisely or of laying down certain limits for the purpose of modifying their severity as far as possible;…

REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
SECTION I
ON BELLIGERENTS
CHAPTER I
On the qualifications of belligerents
Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
Art. 2. The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy's approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerent, if they respect the laws and customs of war.”
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1899b.htm

Erratum “A”

My personal belief that Abraham Lincoln was lying his *** off to keep border states from seceding resulted in the error in Appendix “A,” “even if it wasn’t his belief,” and it should have read, “even if it was his belief.”

Sorry, nobody is perfect. {I may have to go with a bigger alphabet, but since my topics never exceed a couple of pages I think I am safe.}

DivineComedy

No, I am not talking about “an organization that doesn't wear uniforms is a ‘threat to humanity.‘" I am specifically talking about the inhuman pond scum in civilian clothes, who is using those civilian clothes as a weapon to facilitate belligerence against the civil, making everyone suspect the civility of their neighbor. Such violent incivility, using civilian disguise to facilitate belligerence, is incompatible with civilization: with small arms on the city-state level it is devastating to civilization, with weapons of mass destruction on the national level it is devastating to civilization.

The word “terrorist” would certainly be indefinable to someone that needs a definition for the word “civilization.”

I clearly said: “It has been said that occupation creates terrorists or justifies them, that is how it happens, and I submit that is only true if the enemy is from Alpha Centauri (and bent on the destruction of all humans) or there is a moral rot at the core belief of the potential terrorist.”

Khayembii Communique said: “History has proven you wrong so many times I lost count. You're basically saying that, regardless of the tactics used, resistance struggles are always caused by immoral people bent on the destruction of humanity. Your analysis of historical events is a joke. You might as well just blame it on ‘evil.’”

I said, “that is how it happens,” meaning and acknowledging that terrorists happen when there is an occupation. Like “crap” happens. It is to be expected:

“After all if less than 2 dozen men can kill 3,000 people and cause billions of dollars in damage, think of how much damage a hundred could do. Think of how much damage 2 hundred could do.” (Janie)

The military job description is in the root of the word military, and throughout history the soldier has never been at liberty to do whatever he wants for very long, as he has superiors over him.

The civilian job description is in the root of the word too. It means what it says, civil.

The terrorist’s job description is in the definition of the word it is made from, like an alchemist, or a chemist, terror as a profession speaks for itself to anyone with enough sense.

The terrorist is neither a civilian or a soldier. The resistance that blows up its own civilians or uses civilians as shields, is being uncivil or asking for the occupation military to exterminate his own people, respectively.

The civilian is civil, the soldier can be ordered to be civil, but the terrorist‘s job description means they must be exterminated like insects in a bug hunt if we want to have civilization.

*****

I clearly said: “The Communist (Christian, believing in redistribution of income) may be just as reprehensible to the Libertarian (Atheist, believing that if charity isn‘t enough that is tough),”

Meaning that the Libertarian could be a Christian, and vise versa. It is a concept, and not even an imagined concept: A Communist Christian, or a Libertarian Atheist. Such combinations of beliefs can and do exist.

Khayembii Communique committed first insult: “Communists are atheists. Where the hell did you get the idea that they're Christian? That's pretty stupid.”

No, it is not stupid for me to say that, or to believe one communist could be a Christian, it is just that you are clearly too ignorant to understand the most simple of concepts.

Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have a nice day.

DivineComedy

Maybe that is your problem; reading is fundamental.

You should go tell you mommy where you are, and until then go here:

Welcome to CartoonNetwork.com!

Khayembii Communique

I asked you how you define those words.

Terrorism isn't a "professon". It is a tactic.

Most resistance movements don't have soldiers. Soldiers are part of a conventional army.

Have you ever actually studied resistance movements? Have you read Fanon's book?

How are civilians and soldiers by default "civil"? You're saying atrocities haven't been committed by civilians or soldiers?

Christian communists aren't communist. A belief in Marxism implies a materialist outlook as opposed to an idealist outlook that religious people hold.

I wouldn't suggest anyone to read this crap.

DivineComedy

Sorry, I already read your post, put the warning it at the top next time.


You are not my target audience, but just to be sure you understand, that doesn’t mean I am saying you shouldn‘t be targeted.

Khayembii Communique said: “Terrorism isn't a ‘professon‘. It is a tactic.”

A pugilist’s profession is boxing and we call it pugilism, and the terrorist’s profession is terror and we call it terrorism. So is Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin going back to civil engineering, or uh, public administration?

Khayembii Communique said: “Most resistance movements don't have soldiers.” Duh!

That is why most of them aren’t very successful at getting sustainable peace and prosperity.

Khayembii Communique said: “Soldiers are part of a conventional army.”

A skilled warrior wearing war paint is not necessarily a terrorist, but their kind may be savage and undisciplined enough to find their progeny on reservations, in the ground, and or their former lands occupied by civilized nations.

Khayembii Communique said: “Christian communists aren't communist.”

So what are “Christian communists?” {I just copy and pasted the “Christian communists,” for effect.}

Khayembii Communique asked: “How are civilians and soldiers by default ‘civil‘?”

Since you are not civil by default, therefore, you should be assumed to uncivil, rude, or inferior. Right?

*****

1) Khayembii Communique said: “Yeah, resistance movements should appeal to legal means - means which are controlled and enforced by the oppressors! That'll change a lot!”

2) Khayembii Communique said: “All political movements are ‘tyrannous.’ Saying the enemy of humanity is ‘tyranny‘ is false for that very reason.”

One plus two = It is nice to see we still have bands hunting and gathering for subsistence; the bands are either civilized or savage; if civilized it is too bad the bands couldn’t use a political movement, and not be cruel or unjustly severe, because history has shown that civilized tribes do not live will with barbarians or savages.

{I have Cherokee cousins living in Oklahoma.}

Khayembii Communique asked: “Have you ever actually studied resistance movements? Have you read Fanon's book?”

I am letting you teach us.

Khayembii Communique

Circular logic. You're saying "a terrorist is a terrorist because a terrorist's profession is terrorism". Also, again, terrorism isn't a "professon". It's a tactic.

Arguably false.

Again, your view that this is a battle between "civilization" and "barbarism" is a false dichotomy used for propaganda purposes by those furthering this so-called "war on terror". If the US was so concerned with fighting terror, then they wouldn't sponsor it.

Liberation theologists claiming to be communist.

This has nothing to do with the questions I presented.

Again, your perception that you can classify people into "civilized" and "barbaric" is a false dichotomy. You have yet to define "civilization" or "barbaric" and you have also yet to show how the "war on terror" is a battle between civilization and barbarism.

I'll take that as a no. If you haven't read on the subject, you shouldn't be talking about it, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.