On my visits to the United States, I was boggled at how Fox News was actually able to maintain it's accidental labelling as 'a news channel'. Worst of all it's gibbering goons was a creature called Glen Beck, a blackboard wielding demagogue of the school of dipsh*ttery.
I caught this on Channel 4 a couple of nights back, here in the UK and it's excellent.
Lewis Black is awesome, but then again, Glenn Beck IS an enormous target for such satire. On the other hand, he does go on TV and spout the most ridiculous nonsense. He almost makes Alex Jones look like a moderate. (I said ALMOST, remember that!!! )
Lewis Black is friggin hilarious. Hes been one of my fav comedians for years now. I still think one of my favs from him is his skit about preparing for a nuclear explosion in school. Thanks for the good laugh.
I don't watch the daily show, as the humour doesn't relly appeal to me... but that Jon Stewart clip was a spot on characterization of the bufoonery that is Glen Beck.
The thing is he really is an easy target because he says such rediculous stuff. The bad thig is that there are people out there that actually take him seriously....I know them....I work with them....they pass around these tea party cards and talk about how Obama is a secret muslim/communist.
And they really think that they are having an effect on the governement.(maybe they are maybe not)
I believe that all our news is filtered at some level. It's not hard to manipulate the media. Celebrity scandals, for example, are easy to create, and are a great distraction from other events.
Fateweaver wrote:As opposed to the gak MSNBC puts out?
MSNBC has made a business decision in response to the success of FOX to follow the same business model as a left wing station. It won't work because while FOX's journalistic standards are woeful their production and formulation of message is excellent and the source of their on-going success. It won't work because there just isn't a market for disgruntled left wingers wanting to hear partisan drivel, as talkback radio has demonstrated for decades. It won't work because they're MSNBC and they suck.
No-one watches it, all it really does it allow FOX news viewers to pretend there is nothing wrong because MSNBC is trying to be as bad. Which is a shame, because both sides and everyone in the middle really need to agree that any partisan coverage is bad.
ALL MSM news networks are full of liars and outright gak heads.
That isn't true, there are plenty of source of balanced and reasonable reporting. If you're incapable of accessing any decent reporting you’d probably be best to drop out of political discussions.
Glad only Fox is the culprit though?
No-one said FOX was the only culprit, you just made that claim to deflect blame from FOX. That’s a strategy commonly taken by partisan media outlets, which is a little ironic, don’t you think. A little too ironic.
Fox is just more blatant about it then most. They all do it.
PBS is about the only semi-fact based news anymore.
Hell, the pentagon had tapes of US pilots murdering Reuters reporters leaked and that never made most of the 'news' stations because Tiger Woods was getting back into golf!
I laugh every time someone says CNN is too liberal. Usually the rationale is related to a lack of "America Smash" message.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Hell, the pentagon had tapes of US pilots murdering Reuters reporters leaked and that never made most of the 'news' stations because Tiger Woods was getting back into golf!
There was a thread about that here, it wasn't murder.
The point was it was barely even mentioned. While I'm MORE then aware of the eventuality of friendly fire, the military should have come out and admitted it, because there were too many ways that lies can be found out in this day and age.
And killing reporters is like killing cops. Their pals are all going to come gunning for you.
BaronIveagh wrote:The point was it was barely even mentioned. While I'm MORE then aware of the eventuality of friendly fire, the military should have come out and admitted it, because there were too many ways that lies can be found out in this day and age.
And killing reporters is like killing cops. Their pals are all going to come gunning for you.
Meh, it wasn't mentioned because it was believed that the negative press would have been awful at the time of commission. That was a valid suspicion, and given the minute reaction to the footage it has been borne out as correct.
BaronIveagh wrote:The point was it was barely even mentioned. While I'm MORE then aware of the eventuality of friendly fire, the military should have come out and admitted it, because there were too many ways that lies can be found out in this day and age.
And killing reporters is like killing cops. Their pals are all going to come gunning for you.
It wasn't mentioned because -it wasn't news-.
The tapes were almost two to three years old, and had been given to the press by Reuters then. They didn't make the news then because of the fact that there was an investigation under way, and the Apache crew were cleared of wrongdoing at that time because of the situation itself.
Actually, I was given to understand that the Pentagon had refused to release the tapes to Reuters and they were leaked fairly recently, though they, themselves, were old.
That said: on the up side, that's GREAT! I'd love to see America go the way of Greece....
Actually, I'd love to see America go the way of the Dodo. the politicians here have been selling out the people for years and perhaps now it will come home to roost.
Maybe you'll Balkanize like all those other countries made of different states? I'm told that now something like 20% of Americans don't care anymore if states leave the Union.
Edit: and if I see Sarah Palin in a black leather outfit and a swastika arm band, I'll offer her a shot at the starring role in my remake of Illsa, She Wolf of the SS.
Fateweaver wrote:As opposed to the gak MSNBC puts out?
ALL MSM news networks are full of liars and outright gak heads.
Glad only Fox is the culprit though?
The "Sometimes you just have to take a stand no matter what people may think of you" thread is about 5 below this one. You missed.
Actually, I was given to understand that the Pentagon had refused to release the tapes to Reuters and they were leaked fairly recently, though they, themselves, were old.
That said: on the up side, that's GREAT! I'd love to see America go the way of Greece....
Actually, I'd love to see America go the way of the Dodo. the politicians here have been selling out the people for years and perhaps now it will come home to roost.
Maybe you'll Balkanize like all those other countries made of different states? I'm told that now something like 20% of Americans don't care anymore if states leave the Union.
Translation: I would love to see my house get set on fire while I'm in it. It would be cool to see the interior change a bit.
BaronIveagh wrote:
That said: on the up side, that's GREAT! I'd love to see America go the way of Greece....
Being a relatively wealthy young professional, I would not.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Actually, I'd love to see America go the way of the Dodo. the politicians here have been selling out the people for years and perhaps now it will come home to roost.
Meh, our nation has been well managed when compared to the rest of the developed world.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Edit: and if I see Sarah Palin in a black leather outfit and a swastika arm band, I'll offer her a shot at the starring role in my remake of Illsa, She Wolf of the SS.
I'd hurt her, wit whatever implement happened to be most convenient.
dogma wrote:Being a relatively wealthy young professional, I would not.
Being part of civilisation, I would not. Seriously, a financial meltdown in the US would really, really suck. It's why you guys really need to get your political dialogue and your economic policies in order.
And no, the Tea Party is not part of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:I so find Lewis Black unfunny. I sometimes think he starts his morning off with a 24 pack of Red Bull followed up by 2 pounds of sugar.
He's more animated than a 5yo hopped up on speed.
I don't normally find Lewis Black all that funny. But most people are pretty funny when they're making fun of Glenn Beck, and Black's bit was particularly hilarious.
I think it might be because Black is normally a bit over the top with his schtick about shouting perceived common sense at people, but it works here because people really need to be shouting common sense at Beck.
dogma wrote:Being a relatively wealthy young professional, I would not.
Being part of civilisation, I would not. Seriously, a financial meltdown in the US would really, really suck. It's why you guys really need to get your political dialogue and your economic policies in order.
Having lived in the united states for nearly twenty-one years I'm all but sure our politicians will try their damnedest to dance around the problem while poking each other with the 'blame' stick.
Fateweaver wrote:I so find Lewis Black unfunny. I sometimes think he starts his morning off with a 24 pack of Red Bull followed up by 2 pounds of sugar.
He's more animated than a 5yo hopped up on speed.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds him irritating. If loud and angry equaled funny, than Hitler must have been a hilarious speaker.
Oh crap- I must have Nazi Tourettes too... what a d-bag.
To me he seems to be proof that the empty can rattles the most.
Fateweaver wrote:As opposed to the gak MSNBC puts out?
ALL MSM news networks are full of liars and outright gak heads.
Glad only Fox is the culprit though?
Independent studies show that of the cable and Big Three networks, in terms of trustworthiness polling inidcates that Fox is rated #1 for trust, with CNN just behind. These two beat all other networks. I like that.
While I think that Glenn Beck is out of his mind I do watch a bit of his show here and there.
A man having a breakdown every day on TV is entertaining, pure and simple. I don't watch much Fox News but I don't go overboard with hate for it either. They have an audience that they cater to. If you don't like it, don't watch.
News shows shouldn't "cater", they should report what's going on. It's okay to have opinion pieces too, but they need to be clearly defined as such and not misrepresent the facts.
Da Boss wrote:News shows shouldn't "cater", they should report what's going on. It's okay to have opinion pieces too, but they need to be clearly defined as such and not misrepresent the facts.
They do that on Fox though... There are news reports and opinion shows on the channel. I don't know how many people that make these claims have actually watched Fox News without any kind of prejudice.
I place the responsibility on the viewer, honestly. If you're watching The O'Reilly Factor and can't figure out that it's an opinion-based show you should be booted right in your genitals.
Exactly. People have a beef with Beck and are derisive about Fox, but don't seem to have a beef with ABC putting on Lost. Both networks run non-news programming.
Da Boss wrote:News shows shouldn't "cater", they should report what's going on. It's okay to have opinion pieces too, but they need to be clearly defined as such and not misrepresent the facts.
They do that on Fox though... There are news reports and opinion shows on the channel. I don't know how many people that make these claims have actually watched Fox News without any kind of prejudice.
The onus isn't on if there should or should not be political bias on the various networks, we understand that there is, (although coming from the UK, I am surprised and alittle disgusted by just how much blatant bias there is on Fox), rather it is that the bias opinions are presented by such a nub. This Beck fellow is ignorant in the extreme and therefore ill placed to be a centre-stage reporter and political commentator. It's like they let the angry tub-thumping conspiracy nut from the end of the bar wander in drunk and stay forever.
Da Boss wrote:News shows shouldn't "cater", they should report what's going on. It's okay to have opinion pieces too, but they need to be clearly defined as such and not misrepresent the facts.
They do that on Fox though... There are news reports and opinion shows on the channel. I don't know how many people that make these claims have actually watched Fox News without any kind of prejudice.
The onus isn't on if there should or should not be political bias on the various networks, we understand that there is, (although coming from the UK, I am surprised and alittle disgusted by just how much blatant bias there is on Fox), rather it is that the bias opinions are presented by such a nub. This Beck fellow is ignorant in the extreme and therefore ill placed to be a centre-stage reporter and political commentator. It's like they let the angry tub-thumping conspiracy nut from the end of the bar wander in drunk and stay forever.
..isn't the rumour that Beck is being dropped/leaving soon anyway ? He's not on their latest newspaper advert, lost 1 third of his viewing figures and, most importantly, has caused quite a few advertisers to cancel their sales spots.
Da Boss wrote:News shows shouldn't "cater", they should report what's going on. It's okay to have opinion pieces too, but they need to be clearly defined as such and not misrepresent the facts.
They do that on Fox though... There are news reports and opinion shows on the channel. I don't know how many people that make these claims have actually watched Fox News without any kind of prejudice.
The onus isn't on if there should or should not be political bias on the various networks, we understand that there is, (although coming from the UK, I am surprised and alittle disgusted by just how much blatant bias there is on Fox), rather it is that the bias opinions are presented by such a nub. This Beck fellow is ignorant in the extreme and therefore ill placed to be a centre-stage reporter and political commentator. It's like they let the angry tub-thumping conspiracy nut from the end of the bar wander in drunk and stay forever.
You say that as if it wouldn't be the best show ever...
Whether or not Glenn Beck is a nub, his show is opinion-based and isn't presented as news. As far as whether or not he's qualified as a political commentator, apparently enough people think that he is for him to keep a big enough audience to stay on the air.
I apologise for the confusion, I was responding to your point about Fox News, which I have watched and gotten that impression of, not Glenn Beck's show, which I have only seen out of context clips from.
Bias is fairly unavoidable, but I still think it should be kept to as low a level as possible.
Everything is biased. Other outlets are particularly eggregious as well (NBC, MSNBC, CBS). Its the only news one thats biased right wing. Its refreshing.
dogma wrote:Being a relatively wealthy young professional, I would not.
Oh well. I suppose you should start hoping hard now that the DOW doesn't do a nose dive like it did the other day. Of course, with Greece turning the Euro to dust, I'm making good money buying from Europe and selling in the US.
But seriously, I'd like to see it all come down. Jefferson suggested, IIRC that a country needs a revolution every 200 years or so. I think that the US is heading toward that as it grows more and more polarized and the Government seizes more and more power. Look at New York. Taxes are approaching the point the population cannot bare them, and the state is still not able to make payroll. How much longer before we see rioting in the streets in Buffalo and Albany, since it's the western part of the state that's being hit hardest. Most of the people out here are making very little money to begin with, and the state is taxing them for everything it can think of, including the number of trees on your property.
I'm thankful every day that being Seneca shields me from most of it, but it's approaching the critical point.
Edit: yes, but few other stations would put on anyone as idiotic as that hypocrite Glen Beck. Black does have one point: Beck has no right to suggest that he's outraged about anyone calling someone else a Nazi.
Fateweaver wrote:As opposed to the gak MSNBC puts out?
ALL MSM news networks are full of liars and outright gak heads.
Glad only Fox is the culprit though?
Independent studies show that of the cable and Big Three networks, in terms of trustworthiness polling inidcates that Fox is rated #1 for trust, with CNN just behind. These two beat all other networks. I like that.
In a related statistic with as much evidence 70% of people actually live on the moon and commute to work.
Fateweaver wrote:As opposed to the gak MSNBC puts out?
ALL MSM news networks are full of liars and outright gak heads.
Glad only Fox is the culprit though?
Independent studies show that of the cable and Big Three networks, in terms of trustworthiness polling inidcates that Fox is rated #1 for trust, with CNN just behind. These two beat all other networks. I like that.
In a related statistic with as much evidence 70% of people actually live on the moon and commute to work.
I've heard John Stewart is now the most trusted name in news.
But seriously, I'd like to see it all come down. Jefferson suggested, IIRC that a country needs a revolution every 200 years or so. I think that the US is heading toward that as it grows more and more polarized and the Government seizes more and more power. Look at New York. Taxes are approaching the point the population cannot bare them, and the state is still not able to make payroll.
Jefferson slept with his slaves and taxes are below what they were when clinton was in office.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:As opposed to the gak MSNBC puts out?
ALL MSM news networks are full of liars and outright gak heads.
Glad only Fox is the culprit though?
Independent studies show that of the cable and Big Three networks, in terms of trustworthiness polling inidcates that Fox is rated #1 for trust, with CNN just behind. These two beat all other networks. I like that.
In a related statistic with as much evidence 70% of people actually live on the moon and commute to work.
I've heard John Stewart is now the most trusted name in news.
Interestingly enough, thats the only thing in this quote string that wasn't made up.
But seriously, I'd like to see it all come down. Jefferson suggested, IIRC that a country needs a revolution every 200 years or so. I think that the US is heading toward that as it grows more and more polarized and the Government seizes more and more power. Look at New York. Taxes are approaching the point the population cannot bare them, and the state is still not able to make payroll.
Jefferson slept with his slaves and taxes are below what they were when clinton was in office.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:As opposed to the gak MSNBC puts out?
ALL MSM news networks are full of liars and outright gak heads.
Glad only Fox is the culprit though?
Independent studies show that of the cable and Big Three networks, in terms of trustworthiness polling inidcates that Fox is rated #1 for trust, with CNN just behind. These two beat all other networks. I like that.
In a related statistic with as much evidence 70% of people actually live on the moon and commute to work.
I've heard John Stewart is now the most trusted name in news.
Interestingly enough, thats the only thing in this quote string that wasn't made up.
I think it illustrates nicely how polarized the US is, and how little reality has to do with any of it. And no, New York taxes are now at record highs. Remember, it's not just the fed that taxes you.
I think it illustrates nicely how polarized the US is, and how little reality has to do with any of it.
Meh, Jon just doesn't lie on tv. His big thing is catching other news agencies doing so, which he does regularly and with humor. It's easy to build up trust as a comedian whistleblower.
I do think that one of the more entertaining things about this is here we have an American whining that other Americans are acting like Nazis. First of all: the Nazis just modernized ideas that the US invented, and used them all at the same time.
Death Camps? Check. (Andersonville/Elmira, anyone?)
Genocide? Check. (according to some estimates, over 60 million native Americans died, compared to six million Jews)
Inhuman medical experiments? Check. (Tuskegee, anyone?)
Total war/war on civilians? Check. (Fredricksburg? Sherman's Georgia campaign? The Wyoming Valley Campaign? The Harmar Campaign?)
I do think that one of the more entertaining things about this is here we have an American whining that other Americans are acting like Nazis. First of all: the Nazis just modernized ideas that the US invented, and used them all at the same time.
Please cite examples.
Death Camps? Check. (Andersonville/Elmira, anyone?)
Genocide? Check. (according to some estimates, over 60 million native Americans died, compared to six million Jews)
Inhuman medical experiments? Check. (Tuskegee, anyone?)
Total war/war on civilians? Check. (Fredricksburg? Sherman's Georgia campaign? The Wyoming Valley Campaign? The Harmar Campaign?)
There they are! We didn't invent any of those things and the nazis were better at most. As to the native american issue, the vast majority of them died from starvation or disease while still reletively segregated from american power. The same thing happened to the south american empires. Disease is a powerful and often times accidental weapon.
Jon Stewart is trusted? That poll must have been the opinions of the left. Jon Stewart is unfunny, full of himself and full of hot air.
I love how Fox news is so evil for being right biased and the ONLY right biased news network in the MSM but MSNBC, CNN, ABC and CBS are left biased and that's okay.
Fredericksburg was total war? Er say again? Stupidity in attacking an entrenched position, but in what reality could this possibly be linked to the nazis?
Death Camps? Check. (Andersonville/Elmira, anyone?) Mmm yea.
Genocide? Check. (according to some estimates, over 60 million native Americans died, compared to six million Jews) What nutjob was estimating there were 60MM Indians in North America?
What about Spain, Portugal, and England? They opened the West. What about the Romans, Assyrians, Persians, Turks, blah blah.
Inhuman medical experiments? Check. (Tuskegee, anyone?)
*Yea that’s bad, but no way the US was the first. How about pox ridden blankets? All those siege guys throwing dead corpses over walls?
Total war/war on civilians? Check. (Fredricksburg? Sherman's Georgia campaign? The Wyoming Valley Campaign? The Harmar Campaign?)
Fredericksburg was total war? Er say again? Stupidity in attacking an entrenched position, but in what reality could this possibly be linked to the nazis?
Georgia was nothing to what the Assyrians, Mongols, Tamerlane, Romans, Turks, all those guys would have done.
Fateweaver wrote: I love how Fox news is so evil for being right biased and the ONLY right biased news network in the MSM but MSNBC, CNN, ABC and CBS are left biased and that's okay.
It's as if reality has a left leaning bias leading to virtually every single non fox affiliate news station to report that way! Or it could just be that fox is a flagrantly biased excuse for a news network that utilizes a ludicrous amount of yellow journalism and knowingly lies to it's audience daily because it's audience is pretty fething dumb?
The truth is both of these things are the case.
Jon Stewart is trusted? That poll must have been the opinions of the left. Jon Stewart is unfunny, full of himself and full of hot air.
You're just mad because your vote didn't count sixty million times.
I'm not mad. Jon Stewart is a tool. He bashes capitalism when it's capitalism allowing him to get paid millions per year to spew his hot air powered rants; he falls into the same category of people who somehow think it would have been better for the US to have invaded Japan instead of nuking it when there is enough proof to totally invalidate that idiotic claim.
I used to watch Jon Stewart before he did the daily show because he was funny. Now he's a wannabe news reporter trying to be funny when in fact smashing my elbow repeatedly against a steel structure until I can no longer feel my arm and my elbow is mush would be funnier.
That's my OPINION of him Shuma. I know you'll try to claim my OPINION is false so go on with your bad self.
Fateweaver wrote:I'm not mad. Jon Stewart is a tool. He bashes capitalism when it's capitalism allowing him to get paid millions per year to spew his hot air powered rants; he falls into the same category of people who somehow think it would have been better for the US to have invaded Japan instead of nuking it when there is enough proof to totally invalidate that idiotic claim.
I used to watch Jon Stewart before he did the daily show because he was funny. Now he's a wannabe news reporter trying to be funny when in fact smashing my elbow repeatedly against a steel structure until I can no longer feel my arm and my elbow is mush would be funnier.
That's my OPINION of him Shuma. I know you'll try to claim my OPINION is false so go on with your bad self.
Ok. You're opinion is false.
Jon Stewart's brilliance lies in making all those people think he's not exactly the same as the people he sends up on his show.
When jon stuart first went onto bill O'reillys show years ago he spoke a line that I think is pretty pertinent in the situation. Bill was lambasting him for not being serious on his show when he criticizes other newsmen and he was calling jon a Hippocratic. Jon replied that his show came on after a show with prank calling talking puppets, and that it's sad that he is capable of being the same as the people he criticizes. His show is a faux news show on comedy central. If he is the same as the people he is criticizing then he has a pretty good fething point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:So being a douche who knows nothing about what he's talking about is brilliant?
My how the IQ test standards have fallen.
For never knowing what you're talking about you always seem to know when others don't know what they're talking about. Do you have a show on comedy central?
I do think that one of the more entertaining things about this is here we have an American whining that other Americans are acting like Nazis. First of all: the Nazis just modernized ideas that the US invented, and used them all at the same time.
Please cite examples.
Death Camps? Check. (Andersonville/Elmira, anyone?)
Genocide? Check. (according to some estimates, over 60 million native Americans died, compared to six million Jews)
Inhuman medical experiments? Check. (Tuskegee, anyone?)
Total war/war on civilians? Check. (Fredricksburg? Sherman's Georgia campaign? The Wyoming Valley Campaign? The Harmar Campaign?)
There they are! We didn't invent any of those things and the nazis were better at most. As to the native american issue, the vast majority of them died from starvation or disease while still reletively segregated from american power. The same thing happened to the south american empires. Disease is a powerful and often times accidental weapon.
So, deliberately passing out smallpox infected blankets was an accident, and I'm curious what nation built death camps before the US? Are you also implying that the US did not, in fact, deliberately infect a racial minority with syphilis? Or kill thousands of Confederate POWs at Elmira?
The US also was behind 9/11 bombings, H1N1 was a ploy to kill off anyone who didn't agree with the Free Masons (I mean look at all those FEMA casket protectors).
So, deliberately passing out smallpox infected blankets was an accident, and I'm curious what nation built death camps before the US? Are you also implying that the US did not, in fact, deliberately infect a racial minority with syphilis? Or kill thousands of Confederate POWs at Elmira?
I will imply that when I imply that. If you would like to read the post you quoted I simply stated a fact. As for previous death camps those date all the way back to biblical times. Work camps where no one stops working until they die have never been particularly unheard of. Vlad the impaler had them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:The US also was behind 9/11 bombings, H1N1 was a ploy to kill off anyone who didn't agree with the Free Masons (I mean look at all those FEMA casket protectors).
The US was also behind the Iceland volcanic eruption and the sinking of the BP Horizon. Don't forget the US also secretly sank the Titanic to get the US into WWI years before it actually started-thats how evil thinking we are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
I do think that one of the more entertaining things about this is here we have an American whining that other Americans are acting like Nazis. First of all: the Nazis just modernized ideas that the US invented, and used them all at the same time.
Please cite examples.
Death Camps? Check. (Andersonville/Elmira, anyone?)
Genocide? Check. (according to some estimates, over 60 million native Americans died, compared to six million Jews)
Inhuman medical experiments? Check. (Tuskegee, anyone?)
Total war/war on civilians? Check. (Fredricksburg? Sherman's Georgia campaign? The Wyoming Valley Campaign? The Harmar Campaign?)
There they are! We didn't invent any of those things and the nazis were better at most. As to the native american issue, the vast majority of them died from starvation or disease while still reletively segregated from american power. The same thing happened to the south american empires. Disease is a powerful and often times accidental weapon.
So, deliberately passing out smallpox infected blankets was an accident, and I'm curious what nation built death camps before the US? Are you also implying that the US did not, in fact, deliberately infect a racial minority with syphilis? Or kill thousands of Confederate POWs at Elmira?
Wrong country Amherst was a British officer
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html Smallpox blankets
Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst's name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:
... Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]
Some people have doubted these stories; other people, believing the stories, nevertheless assert that the infected blankets were not intentionally distributed to the Indians, or that Lord Jeff himself is not to blame for the germ warfare tactic.
So, deliberately passing out smallpox infected blankets was an accident, and I'm curious what nation built death camps before the US? Are you also implying that the US did not, in fact, deliberately infect a racial minority with syphilis? Or kill thousands of Confederate POWs at Elmira?
I will imply that when I imply that. If you would like to read the post you quoted I simply stated a fact. As for previous death camps those date all the way back to biblical times. Work camps where no one stops working until they die have never been particularly unheard of. Vlad the impaler had them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:The US also was behind 9/11 bombings, H1N1 was a ploy to kill off anyone who didn't agree with the Free Masons (I mean look at all those FEMA casket protectors).
Gitmo. Look at Gitmo to see how evil the US is.
Who are you even talking too? Are you drunk?
You say I don't know what I'm talking about so I'm proving your point so that your epeen will get bigger (or your already over inflated ego, whichever of the two is smaller).
So, deliberately passing out smallpox infected blankets was an accident, and I'm curious what nation built death camps before the US? Are you also implying that the US did not, in fact, deliberately infect a racial minority with syphilis? Or kill thousands of Confederate POWs at Elmira?
I will imply that when I imply that. If you would like to read the post you quoted I simply stated a fact. As for previous death camps those date all the way back to biblical times. Work camps where no one stops working until they die have never been particularly unheard of. Vlad the impaler had them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:The US also was behind 9/11 bombings, H1N1 was a ploy to kill off anyone who didn't agree with the Free Masons (I mean look at all those FEMA casket protectors).
Gitmo. Look at Gitmo to see how evil the US is.
Who are you even talking too? Are you drunk?
You say I don't know what I'm talking about so I'm proving your point so that your epeen will get bigger (or your already over inflated ego, whichever of the two is smaller).
But you prove my point every time you post seriously! You don't need to prove my point on purpose, you do it anyway!
As a neutral observer of your online love-affair I'd say Fate is actually the less antagonistic, though I agree with Shuma slightly more often. 60-40 or so...
Its like watching two brothers hitting each other in the back of the car. Occasionlly Dad reaches around and smacks whicher's closer but usually he just wonders where it all went wrong. After all he was going to be an astronaut/scientist/millionaire. What the hell happened?
So, deliberately passing out smallpox infected blankets was an accident, and I'm curious what nation built death camps before the US? Are you also implying that the US did not, in fact, deliberately infect a racial minority with syphilis? Or kill thousands of Confederate POWs at Elmira?
I will imply that when I imply that. If you would like to read the post you quoted I simply stated a fact. As for previous death camps those date all the way back to biblical times. Work camps where no one stops working until they die have never been particularly unheard of. Vlad the impaler had them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:The US also was behind 9/11 bombings, H1N1 was a ploy to kill off anyone who didn't agree with the Free Masons (I mean look at all those FEMA casket protectors).
Gitmo. Look at Gitmo to see how evil the US is.
Who are you even talking too? Are you drunk?
You say I don't know what I'm talking about so I'm proving your point so that your epeen will get bigger (or your already over inflated ego, whichever of the two is smaller).
But you prove my point every time you post seriously! You don't need to prove my point on purpose, you do it anyway!
Apparently you don't read all of my posts.
So apparently in your little world no post of mine ever makes sense and is mindless drivel.
Go read every single one of my posts and then come back to me and apologize for talking out your ass. I suggest you start in News and Rumors and work your way down. Stop in at the P&M threads to.
Of course knowing you you'll find something in one of my posts about modeling to attack.
If you were a girl Shuma I would think you are in love with me the way you obsess over my posts. It's kind of creepy actually. LOL. I'm lead to believe you are a male. If you are female than you'd for sure be the last woman on Earth I'd ever give my number to. LOL.
I want a pack to guard my yard. I'll train them to attack Liberals with intent to kill.
So yeah, Lewis Black irritates me worst than Jon Stewart and that's saying a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dietrich wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:Poor hyena getting muzzled.
Apparently, muzzling a hyena is easier that muzzling Glen Beck!
Well, perhaps there is that whole "Constitution" thing getting in the way of muzzling him.
Of course liberals and liberal MSM (god how ironic that is) want tighter constraints on what the 1st Amendment should entail. The Second Amendment is under attack constantly and thanks to liberal PC nonsense the First is being threatened as well.
Sigh Modquisition. Ok break the hold here guys enough lovey dovey already. Lets focus back On Topic shall we?
Am I allowed to reply to him? Or should I just leave it alone? He's just going to complain about the liberal media in every post and infer that liberals hate the constitution and want to destroy america every time he does it.
I'd reply with drivel of mine own to match the drivel you just spewed out but I'm not a douche and actually listen to what the mods tell me instead of attacking them as well.
Your obsession with me is scary Shuma. I bet if I got perma-banned you'd make an account on Warseer just to troll me there. LOL.
Sigh
Modquisition.
Ok break the hold here guys enough lovey dovey already. Lets focus back On Topic shall we?
Am I allowed to reply to him? Or should I just leave it alone? He's just going to complain about the liberal media in every post and infer that liberals hate the constitution and want to destroy america every time he does it.
You can reply to the points. Lets cut the personal stuff and discuss the topic itself.
I'd reply with drivel of mine own to match the drivel you just spewed out but I'm not a douche and actually listen to what the mods tell me instead of attacking
Funny how you've been banned more than me then.
Your obsession with me is scary Shuma. I bet if I got perma-banned you'd make an account on Warseer just to troll me there.
No, I would just be happy that you were gone.
You can reply to the points. Lets cut the personal stuff and discuss the topic itself.
What point would that be? The point where he stated that MSM (whatever that is (I think he meant MSN)) wanted to destroy the first and second amendment? How do I respond to that? It's not coherent, it's not factual, he makes no effort to support it and it's vaguely insulting. It's the exact kind of thing you as a mod are supposed to be attempting to reduce. It's a troll post. Its fairly off topic unsubstantiated partisan drivel with no backing and no effort at moderation.
I'd reply with drivel of mine own to match the drivel you just spewed out but I'm not a douche and actually listen to what the mods tell me instead of attacking
Funny how you've been banned more than me then.
Your obsession with me is scary Shuma. I bet if I got perma-banned you'd make an account on Warseer just to troll me there.
No, I would just be happy that you were gone.
You can reply to the points. Lets cut the personal stuff and discuss the topic itself.
What point would that be? The point where he stated that MSM (whatever that is (I think he meant MSN)) wanted to destroy the first and second amendment? How do I respond to that? It's not coherent, it's not factual, he makes no effort to support it and it's vaguely insulting. It's the exact kind of thing you as a mod are supposed to be attempting to reduce. It's a troll post. Its fairly off topic unsubstantiated partisan drivel with no backing and no effort at moderation.
You don't know my ban count and I'm not going to oblige you. I can tell you it's more than one and less than 10. I'm sure yours is higher.
I think you are happy to attack me whatever I post about. Like I said, go to P&M and attack my posts there (and maybe even learn some skills).
MSM = Mainstream media. I thought you were such an edumacated person Shuma. The liberal run media (and not just news bout movies and tv) do a great job at attacking the constitution and those people that support it (Garafalo, Damon, Jon Stewart, Sean Penn...the list goes on). It's not conservatives who started all this PCbs and forcing political correctness on people is censorship and censorship goes against the First Amendment. It's not conservatives wanting to make guns all but impossible for people to own; it's hypocrites like Moore and tools like Penn and Stewart that are doing anything they can to make people who want to own guns out to be anti-government rednecks with no education.
So, deliberately passing out smallpox infected blankets was an accident, and I'm curious what nation built death camps before the US? Are you also implying that the US did not, in fact, deliberately infect a racial minority with syphilis? Or kill thousands of Confederate POWs at Elmira?
I will imply that when I imply that. If you would like to read the post you quoted I simply stated a fact. As for previous death camps those date all the way back to biblical times. Work camps where no one stops working until they die have never been particularly unheard of. Vlad the impaler had them.
First, you're conflating a labor camp and a death camp.
Additionally, Vlad (III) 'Ţepeș', for all his inhumanity, according to archeological evidence, never built a labor camp at Poienari. There are also no first (or even third) hand accounts of it available. Most of the available information consists of German and Russian pamphlets of the period depicting Vlad in lurid, and inaccurate, detail, many of them being largely poetic in nature. The supposed Easter massacre and enslavement of the boyars comes from a Muscovite pamphlet of the time, and does not appear in any other texts for several years. Almost universally, these were written after his death, by his enemies.
I'm not familiar with the biblical labor camps you mentioned.
I am going to temporarily close and edit this thread to keep it going.
Never mind. Lets start again. Posts after this post will be dealt with assuming negative intent on the point of the poster and strict liability in that area. Fatevweaver / Shuma this means you. I have a nice "congrats you're being suspended!" letter written out, but will desist if YOU TWO AND ANY OTHERS desist the personal attacks.
On the Fort Pitt small pox distribution: : "Out of our regard for them [sc. representatives of the besieging Delawares], we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect." - William Trent, trader and militia leader at Fort Pitt, July 24, 1763.
BaronIveagh wrote:On the Fort Pitt small pox distribution: : "Out of our regard for them [sc. representatives of the besieging Delawares], we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect." - William Trent, trader at Fort Pitt, 1763.
Note the date. Note the officer. It refutes your statement directly.
British.
Anderson wasn't a death camp, just poorly managed with no reasources. No worse, or better than ship hulks commonly employed for retention of prisoners. revolutionaries prisoners in hulks had a 90% mortality. Again different country and predates the US.
Still adifferent country so your argument falls on its face. Thats of course disregarding actually researching all the joys humanity has done to istelf over the millennia. We are vicious little buggers.
Well, no arguments on that front, humanity sucks. I'm still waiting for Shuma's biblical death camps though.
Legal Peculiarity: technically the British refused to recognize the American POWs as prisoners of war, but rather categorized them as traitors, which the laws of the period stated that execution was an acceptable punishment.
And Elmira was in New York during the Civil War.
On Andersonville: Wirz was tried, and found guilty (and hanged). In fact, as I recall, it was one of the first War Crimes tribunals.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Oh well. I suppose you should start hoping hard now that the DOW doesn't do a nose dive like it did the other day. Of course, with Greece turning the Euro to dust, I'm making good money buying from Europe and selling in the US.
My investments are well protected from fluctuations of the US market. The only reason I'm concerned at all relates to concern for my family.
BaronIveagh wrote:
But seriously, I'd like to see it all come down. Jefferson suggested, IIRC that a country needs a revolution every 200 years or so. I think that the US is heading toward that as it grows more and more polarized and the Government seizes more and more power. Look at New York. Taxes are approaching the point the population cannot bare them, and the state is still not able to make payroll.
What taxes, specifically? I know that the American populace has born federal income taxes in excess of 70%, so I find it hard to believe that the current tax rate is the center of the matter.
Frazzled wrote:Everything is biased. Other outlets are particularly eggregious as well (NBC, MSNBC, CBS). Its the only news one thats biased right wing. Its refreshing.
MSNBC, sure. CBS and NBC? Not so much. Bias is a matter of degree, and the sort of palpable distortion that confirms a suspected bias is only present in MNSNBC and FOXNEWS.
Frazzled wrote:Everything is biased. Other outlets are particularly eggregious as well (NBC, MSNBC, CBS). Its the only news one thats biased right wing. Its refreshing.
MSNBC, sure. CBS and NBC? Not so much.
Rathergate must have been a figment of our collective imagination then.
Actually, the highest federal tax level was 94% on all incomes over $200,000 a year, in 1945. Adjusted for inflation, that's incomes over 2.3m dollars a year. The average person made nothing near that, and was taxed far less.
The income taxes for the average person, however, have more or less steadily increased: currently the average person pays somewhere between 25% and 30%.
Now:that's just Federal.
New York additionally taxes: sales (7.78% in this area) trees (based on estimated value of timber), property (*can* be up to 50% of the value of property), unemployment insurance payouts, gas and cigarettes (currently in a legal battle with Seneca nation over this) internet transactions (including out of state ones such as amazon and ebay), cattle methane emissions, sugar and paper (does that sound familiar to anyone else?) and the 'tax tax' where you are taxed on your taxes (not joking).
And those are the ones off the top of my head. Currently according to most sources, we have the highest taxes per capita in the US.
Yeah, it can be perceived any way the observer wishes, but its isn't a necessary indication of bias. The necessity of bias was the distinction I made in my original post.
dogma wrote:Yeah, it can be perceived any way the observer wishes, but its isn't a necessary indication of bias. The necessity of bias was the distinction I made in my original post.
Well, rushing documents that made Dubyuh look bad onto the air by liberal journalists without bothering to authenticate them could be argued pretty strongly to be bias don't you think?
Monster Rain wrote:
Well, rushing documents that made Dubyuh look bad onto the air by liberal journalists without bothering to authenticate them could be argued pretty strongly to be bias don't you think?
Not when the motivation to publish first is also present. News agencies very often rush things to air before authentication. Having interned at a major news outlet I can tell you that their fact checking is little more than an "Is is plausible?" question.
That is changing though. Many news agencies are shifting to an 'expert panel' approach as they cannot keep up with bloggers in terms of speed. Of course, the 'expert panel' is countered by infotainment. It will be interesting to see which one wins out, the trust rating of CNN encourages me.
dogma wrote:That is changing though. Many news agencies are shifting to an 'expert panel' approach as they cannot keep up with bloggers in terms of speed. Of course, the 'expert panel' is countered by infotainment. It will be interesting to see which one wins out, the trust rating of CNN encourages me.
You mean like Fox News has been doing for years? Then there's this, which I think is poignant and thoughtful...
Frazzled wrote:Exactly. People have a beef with Beck and are derisive about Fox, but don't seem to have a beef with ABC putting on Lost. Both networks run non-news programming.
It'd be a problem when Lost begins running a campaign encouraging people to get out and protest against the smoke monster, including telling people about every 'grass roots' rally that's going on. Then ABC news gives extremely generous coverage to every 'grass roots' rally protesting against the smoke monster.
Oh, and for the record, Shep Smith's coverage of the news on FOX is pretty decent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Everything is biased. Other outlets are particularly eggregious as well (NBC, MSNBC, CBS). Its the only news one thats biased right wing. Its refreshing.
That's a really poor way of looking at news, as it pretty much removes any judgement over the actual quality of the news and opinion pieces presented. Yes, every media outlet everywhere on the planet holds bias, at the level of the journalist and at the institutional level. No, that doesn't make them equal.
Bias is unavoidable, and isn't necessarily a bad thing. Any piece on a murder is going to contain the biased opinion 'murder is bad', a piece that didn't make that assumption would be non-sensical. The challenge to good journalism is to represent the facts fairly and accuratately.
When the media outlet develops a policy of gearing all opinion pieces on the network towards a specific, constructed narrative that's a very bad thing, and that's what FOX news is doing, and it's why they're a very poor news channel.
For the record, the other 24 hour channels are also very poor networks, but that's less to do with bias and more to do with quality control and favouring sensation over substance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:I do think that one of the more entertaining things about this is here we have an American whining that other Americans are acting like Nazis. First of all: the Nazis just modernized ideas that the US invented, and used them all at the same time.
I think it's good to be wide eyed about what one's own country has done in the past. I'm not sure its useful to compare the US to the Nazis. It really is one of those 'just don't' things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:I'm not mad. Jon Stewart is a tool. He bashes capitalism when it's capitalism allowing him to get paid millions per year to spew his hot air powered rants; he falls into the same category of people who somehow think it would have been better for the US to have invaded Japan instead of nuking it when there is enough proof to totally invalidate that idiotic claim.
I didn't agree with Stewart on the invasion/bombing of Japan but it isn't as though his view doesn't have some legitimacy. I think if that comment given by Stewart off the cuff is the best you've got to criticise him, then you've got absolutely no case at all.
Your argument that he bashes capitalism is idiotic, and likely means you have no understanding of Stewart's political views, of capitalism, and of the particular application of capitalism in the US. Stewart is critical of specific parts of US law that favour large and politically powerful corporations, and would like to return to greater regulation of markets. This is a long, long way from bashing capitalism, and is yet another instance where you really need to take a look at yourself and how you form your opinions.
That's my OPINION of him Shuma. I know you'll try to claim my OPINION is false so go on with your bad self.
Sure, opinions, whether capitalised or not, cannot be wrong. They can be foolish, though.
Frazzled wrote:Its like watching two brothers hitting each other in the back of the car. Occasionlly Dad reaches around and smacks whicher's closer but usually he just wonders where it all went wrong. After all he was going to be an astronaut/scientist/millionaire. What the hell happened?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:Wait, so... murder is bad?
No, that would be holding an opinion and then you'd be exactly the same as FOX news.
... the sad part is that I might be perfectly ok with using a chain come along to tear a man's genitals off, but the idea of being like Glen Beck repulses me...
youbedead wrote:Agreed Cronkite was one of the truly honest reporter who believed that facts come before entertainment
What about the Tet Offensive?
He made it look like we had been beaten everywhere, but when the actual casualty number came out it was an absolute massacre of VC and NVA. But, his poignant appearance in Saigon all but sinched that we were done in Vietnam in public opinion. I personally don't think entering Vietnam was a great idea, it had it's roots in Harry Truman's Idea of preventing the spread of Communism. But, if you are going to war, make sure you can win.
At least he wasn't as bad as Geraldo Rivera. What kind of moron shows what the battle plan of his embedded unit is?
The Actual news reporting on Fox isn't bad, their opinion shows also bring up interesting points. What's odd though, is when you watch the other channels, they all say the same thing in their news reporting, almost verbatim. Give it try sometime, very refreshing.
BTW, taxes in this country are ridiculous, we need a consumption tax.
youbedead wrote:Agreed Cronkite was one of the truly honest reporter who believed that facts come before entertainment
What about the Tet Offensive?
He made it look like we had been beaten everywhere, but when the actual casualty number came out it was an absolute massacre of VC and NVA. But, his poignant appearance in Saigon all but sinched that we were done in Vietnam in public opinion. I personally don't think entering Vietnam was a great idea, it had it's roots in Harry Truman's Idea of preventing the spread of Communism. But, if you are going to war, make sure you can win.
No he never said we were losing, he said that we couldn't make anymore progress and the both sides were 'mired in stalemate' which was entirely true. The U.S. at that point could not win, the north Vietnamese far outclassed at tactically. We couldn't beat them since we were trying to beat a conventional army in conventional warfare and we were unprepared for guerrilla warfare
Fateweaver wrote:I want a pack to guard my yard. I'll train them to attack Liberals with intent to kill.
So yeah, Lewis Black irritates me worst than Jon Stewart and that's saying a lot.
So, things wrong with America, exhibit A...
No, seriously. You are joking about killing people for disagreeing with you. Nice.
Fateweaver wrote:
Of course liberals and liberal MSM (god how ironic that is) want tighter constraints on what the 1st Amendment should entail. The Second Amendment is under attack constantly and thanks to liberal PC nonsense the First is being threatened as well.
Your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is pretty funny. You can bear arms as soon as you're in a properly ordered militia.
But I like your creativity. Claiming the Constitution is on your side and your opponents hate free speech? No one has ever done that before!
Walter realized that the American public of the time would be too horrified at what it takes to win in that sort of war.
To win a war against insurgents, I mean, really win, not declare victory and pull out, or palm it off on someone else, you have to be willing to kill whole towns down to the last man, woman, child, goat, dog, cat, and chicken.
At least in a tactical situation like Vietnam.
The other way is to put a rifle squad on every street corner, and flood the country with millions of men. Every time a man is killed, you kill everyone on that block.
Kill ratios and hearts and minds are all bs. You have to be willing to do whatever it takes to break their will to fight you.
Actually, people like to bleat about a well ordered militia being a requirement to bare arms: militias are not, nor ever really were, official organizations. The idea at the time was that private citizens could turn out and defend their homes. Or overthrow the government if everything wnet to pot. Remember, the founding fathers weren't entirely sold on the idea that what they were building would even work.
Supposedly, this was done away with the advent of the National Guard, however, as far as the war on terror goes, armed civilians would prove more effective then waiting on the military.
Fateweaver wrote:I want a pack to guard my yard. I'll train them to attack Liberals with intent to kill.
So yeah, Lewis Black irritates me worst than Jon Stewart and that's saying a lot.
So, things wrong with America, exhibit A...
No, seriously. You are joking about killing people for disagreeing with you. Nice.
Fateweaver wrote:
Of course liberals and liberal MSM (god how ironic that is) want tighter constraints on what the 1st Amendment should entail. The Second Amendment is under attack constantly and thanks to liberal PC nonsense the First is being threatened as well.
Your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is pretty funny. You can bear arms as soon as you're in a properly ordered militia.
But I like your creativity. Claiming the Constitution is on your side and your opponents hate free speech? No one has ever done that before!
Your grasp on history is lacking.
The citizens of the US themselves are considered a militia. Every man, woman and child old enough to use and carry a gun is part of a nationwide militia. It was declared so 200+ years ago and that has not changed.
Anti-2nd Amendment nutjobs interpret the 2nd Amendment the way you just did. The Constitution is not RAI for liberals to tear down, it is RAW. 1st Amendment says I can say whatever the hell I want. By the wording in the First Amendment I can use the "N" word and any other slang term I want for minorities. According to liberals and the PC police the 1st Amendment says I can say whatever I want so long as it doesn't offend someone. Say anything I damn well please no matter what =/= say anything I please so long as it doesn't offend. 2nd Amendment says I have the right to own a gun. It does not say "I have the right to own a gun so long as I have permission from the government and that I'm a militant of sorts". 3 states have it right. 3 states are telling the Federal government "go feth yourselves". 3 states do not require a permit of any sorts to buy, own, carry and conceal a firearm. Someday the other 47 states will do the right thing and follow suit.
Stormrider wrote:
BTW, taxes in this country are ridiculous, we need a consumption tax.
You're too young to remember when taxes were really ridiculous.
Wait, so am I. The problem must not be related to memory, but reading.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:
The citizens of the US themselves are considered a militia. Every man, woman and child old enough to use and carry a gun is part of a nationwide militia. It was declared so 200+ years ago and that has not changed.
No, wrong. Glaringly, and painfully wrong.
Fateweaver wrote:
The Constitution is not RAI for liberals to tear down, it is RAW.
Oddly enough, intent is nominally a conservative bastion.
Fateweaver wrote:
2nd Amendment says I have the right to own a gun.
Nope, it says you have the right to bear arms. That does not make a comment on ownership by necessity.
Fateweaver wrote:
Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
God, I can't believe I'm agreeing with Fateweaver, but his interpretation of the second amendment is, basically, correct. Technically, a lot of gun laws on the books now are unconstitutional, however, as far as I know, few challenges to them have made it to the supreme court.
And at that time, baring arms did require that you owned them. The national government had a fairly small standing army, and had no way to supply militias with weapons. You brought your own, very frequently, and this actually continued well into the Civil War.
BaronIveagh wrote:God, I can't believe I'm agreeing with Fateweaver, but his interpretation of the second amendment is, basically, correct. Technically, a lot of gun laws on the books now are unconstitutional, however, as far as I know, few challenges to them have made it to the supreme court.
Most speech laws are also unconstitutional. The document is not iron-clad.
BaronIveagh wrote:
And at that time, baring arms did require that you owned them.
But context isn't allowed, only liberals use context.
BaronIveagh wrote:God, I can't believe I'm agreeing with Fateweaver, but his interpretation of the second amendment is, basically, correct. Technically, a lot of gun laws on the books now are unconstitutional, however, as far as I know, few challenges to them have made it to the supreme court.
Most speech laws are also unconstitutional. The document is not iron-clad.
BaronIveagh wrote:
And at that time, baring arms did require that you owned them.
But context isn't allowed, only liberals use context.
Dogma, and belive me when I say that this is deeply ironic, as a champion of sanity, there's very little room to argue on this one. It's a simply written rule, adn not really open to much intpretation. I'm actually surprised at how much people try to claim RAI was that they meant only the government could carry weapons. That was a very English idea at the time, and something that the founding fathers fought against... hell, George III took it so far as to order all points be ground off all knives in the Empire....
Stormrider wrote:
BTW, taxes in this country are ridiculous, we need a consumption tax.
You're too young to remember when taxes were really ridiculous.
Wait, so am I. The problem must not be related to memory, but reading.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:
The citizens of the US themselves are considered a militia. Every man, woman and child old enough to use and carry a gun is part of a nationwide militia. It was declared so 200+ years ago and that has not changed.
No, wrong. Glaringly, and painfully wrong.
Fateweaver wrote:
The Constitution is not RAI for liberals to tear down, it is RAW.
Oddly enough, intent is nominally a conservative bastion.
Fateweaver wrote:
2nd Amendment says I have the right to own a gun.
Nope, it says you have the right to bear arms. That does not make a comment on ownership by necessity.
Fateweaver wrote:
Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Wrong rules.
The possession of arms is recognized as necessary for and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms. I cannot bear arms if I cannot own them. I have to obviously be in possession of a firearm to bear it.
Stormrider wrote:
BTW, taxes in this country are ridiculous, we need a consumption tax.
You're too young to remember when taxes were really ridiculous.
Wait, so am I. The problem must not be related to memory, but reading.
[size=9]
I know that I am too young to worry about taxes, but someone has to pay for a $14 Trillion Deficit, along with about $103 Trillion lump of unfunded liability. The amount of Taxes I pay now is too damn much. Far too much for a free society but, we haven't been that since the 1910's.
The real problem with Unconsitutional Laws is who gets to interpret whether they are Unconstitutional or not. It's all based on perception unfortunately, not objective views of laws.
BaronIveagh wrote:Walter realized that the American public of the time would be too horrified at what it takes to win in that sort of war.
To win a war against insurgents, I mean, really win, not declare victory and pull out, or palm it off on someone else, you have to be willing to kill whole towns down to the last man, woman, child, goat, dog, cat, and chicken.
At least in a tactical situation like Vietnam.
The other way is to put a rifle squad on every street corner, and flood the country with millions of men. Every time a man is killed, you kill everyone on that block.
No, that’s pretty much the exact opposite of how you actually defeat an insurgency. To defeat an insurgency you need to remove the insurgents from the population. This can be through making alliance with you preferable to alliance with them. It can be through physically moving the civilian population, separating them from the geographic region the insurgents are operating in.
But the use of utter brutality has a really poor track record, because the maths is simple. Everytime you kill a person in response to insurgent actions, you don’t have one less insurgent, you have five more.
In other news, I can’t believed that fateweaver’s random rants about the liberal scheme to ban guns has gotten a reaction, again.
Also, the Gun control laws in Washington DC was finally overturned for being Unconstitutional. I don't see how making people keep their long guns locked and unloaded inside their houses keep anyone any safer. Does that keep a criminal from acquiring a gun illegally? Hell no!
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
According to every court ruling I've found, 'to keep' implies that private individuals may own their own, personal, weapons. This derives from British common law remit for self defense.
I'll further point out that most early drafts read something like this:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
So, what they were aiming for, RAI, was also to arm the citizens, rather then create a national guard. Which is pretty much what they wrote RAW as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:Walter realized that the American public of the time would be too horrified at what it takes to win in that sort of war.
To win a war against insurgents, I mean, really win, not declare victory and pull out, or palm it off on someone else, you have to be willing to kill whole towns down to the last man, woman, child, goat, dog, cat, and chicken.
At least in a tactical situation like Vietnam.
The other way is to put a rifle squad on every street corner, and flood the country with millions of men. Every time a man is killed, you kill everyone on that block.
No, that’s pretty much the exact opposite of how you actually defeat an insurgency. To defeat an insurgency you need to remove the insurgents from the population. This can be through making alliance with you preferable to alliance with them. It can be through physically moving the civilian population, separating them from the geographic region the insurgents are operating in.
But the use of utter brutality has a really poor track record, because the maths is simple. Everytime you kill a person in response to insurgent actions, you don’t have one less insurgent, you have five more.
Um, actually, brutality worked all through the middle ages, and the twentieth century throughout most of the world where it was used. I might point out that separating them has failed miserably every time we've done it, I draw your attention to the Villes.
One thing people don't get: you don't kill one person. You kill five hundred. You make them far more afraid of you then they ever could be of the other side. We came into the villages and vaccinated people. They came in after we left and chopped the arms off all the children that had needle marks. Who won again?
All wars are won or lost in the will of the people fighting them. If you can break them, they will fall.
BaronIveagh wrote:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
According to every court ruling I've found, 'to keep' implies that private individuals may own their own, personal, weapons. This derives from British common law remit for self defense.
I'll further point out that most early drafts read something like this:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
So, what they were aiming for, RAI, was also to arm the citizens, rather then create a national guard. Which is pretty much what they wrote RAW as well.
I think the creation of the National Guard was one of neccessity, not want. To have a militia of guys who all have different caliber weapons creates a hellacious problem with logistics. Plus, if you have a militia that is led by a farmer with no concept of tactics. It will be definitely sub-standard to a unit led by a retired member of the military.
However, if a militia is need the defication has hit the ocillation.
BaronIveagh wrote:Not really. civilians are everywhere, something the military can't really do.
Heck, look at 9/11. It wasn't the armed forces that heroically gave their lives to stop the terrorists on flight 93. It was everyday people.
The first line of defense of any nation is it's people.
True that, I always refer to combat situations in the context of a conventional war. Which we might never see again.
BTW, you are dead on about insurgency, the only way to beat them is to utterly annhinlate them and everything around them. Cruel it may be, but it is damn effective.
BaronIveagh wrote:One thing that occurs to me: lately there has been a lot of noise about revoking the citizenship of US citizens who serve other nations militarizes.
This is prohibited by the 14th Amendment.
(Technically, so is Arizona's new immigration law, if the US born children of Illegal immigrants are deported, it violates section 1)
What's bad is the law passed in Arizona is a version of the Federal law that doesn't get enforced enough.
I can see the reasaon for Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in it's historical context. 1868, all the US born slaves didn't count as citizens, there's an Amnedment made so that the recently freed slaves can now enjoy the benefits of citizenship accross the board. Now, it's purpose is corrupted. The intention was not for "anchor babies". What's even worse is that when these anchor babies become legal adults, they can bring in up to 17 family members from abroad. Inevitably, when some amnesty bill comes around, those people will all become citizens, radically changing the demographics of the nation in a very short time.
I have no problem with immigration, just illegal immigration.
I'm still baffled as to how the 2nd is misinterpreted. The comma between people and State means 2 separate ideas in one sentence. It's not just a pause to catch your breath.
BaronIveagh wrote:One thing that occurs to me: lately there has been a lot of noise about revoking the citizenship of US citizens who serve other nations militarizes.
This is prohibited by the 14th Amendment.
(Technically, so is Arizona's new immigration law, if the US born children of Illegal immigrants are deported, it violates section 1)
What's bad is the law passed in Arizona is a version of the Federal law that doesn't get enforced enough.
I can see the reasaon for Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in it's historical context. 1868, all the US born slaves didn't count as citizens, there's an Amendment made so that the recently freed slaves can now enjoy the benefits of citizenship accross the board. Now, it's purpose is corrupted.
Granted, they hadn't thought of illegal immigrants at the time, however, the point was to ensure that you couldn't be stripped of your rights as a citizen by the government's convenience.
Example: You're arrested for speaking out against the actions of an elected official, under the first amendment, you have that right. Now we strip you off your citizenship! Oops! Now you don't have that right and can be tried in secret by a military tribunal!
BaronIveagh wrote:One thing that occurs to me: lately there has been a lot of noise about revoking the citizenship of US citizens who serve other nations militarizes.
This is prohibited by the 14th Amendment.
(Technically, so is Arizona's new immigration law, if the US born children of Illegal immigrants are deported, it violates section 1)
What's bad is the law passed in Arizona is a version of the Federal law that doesn't get enforced enough.
I can see the reasaon for Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in it's historical context. 1868, all the US born slaves didn't count as citizens, there's an Amendment made so that the recently freed slaves can now enjoy the benefits of citizenship accross the board. Now, it's purpose is corrupted.
Granted, they hadn't thought of illegal immigrants at the time, however, the point was to ensure that you couldn't be stripped of your rights as a citizen by the government's convenience.
Example: You're arrested for speaking out against the actions of an elected official, under the first amendment, you have that right. Now we strip you off your citizenship! Oops! Now you don't have that right and can be tried in secret by a military tribunal!
See how that works?
Yeah, that's Sedition. Woodrow Wilson was a big fan of that during WWI. He had his goons go around the US and arrest people against the war for thier speech.
BaronIveagh wrote:Um, actually, brutality worked all through the middle ages, and the twentieth century throughout most of the world where it was used. I might point out that separating them has failed miserably every time we've done it, I draw your attention to the Villes.
One thing people don't get: you don't kill one person. You kill five hundred. You make them far more afraid of you then they ever could be of the other side. We came into the villages and vaccinated people. They came in after we left and chopped the arms off all the children that had needle marks. Who won again?
All wars are won or lost in the will of the people fighting them. If you can break them, they will fall.
I did not realize we were in the business of breaking the will of entire nations... hmm.
Drop a nuke, problem solved. Your concept is weak, and needs larger explosives to work. Hundreds does not compare to thousands, hence you need to kill millions.
Fateweaver wrote:I approve of a measure that says that if you commit crimes against the US and you are a citizen of the US you lose your citizenship status.
No. Because what's to stop them from then expanding what a 'crime against the US' is?
Fateweaver wrote:I approve of a measure that says that if you commit crimes against the US and you are a citizen of the US you lose your citizenship status.
That'll teach people to hunt off season! This is a brilliant idea.
No. Because what's to stop them from then expanding what a 'crime against the US' is?
Well they would have to determine what is one in the first place. It's not like theres a series of laws pertaining to what "crimes against the U.S." are.
Fateweaver wrote:I'm talking about terrorists Shuma.
Nice attempt at flamebaiting. It sucks for you I have nothing to say to you on the matter.
No, you're talking about "crimes against the U.S.". You know why all court cases have the phrase "The case of (name) vs the state of (state)"? It's because ALL CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST U.S. LAW ARE CRIMES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It's not flamebaiting, you're just being confusingly ignorant of the actual laws and practices of your home country.
BaronIveagh wrote:Um, actually, brutality worked all through the middle ages, and the twentieth century throughout most of the world where it was used. I might point out that separating them has failed miserably every time we've done it, I draw your attention to the Villes.
One thing people don't get: you don't kill one person. You kill five hundred. You make them far more afraid of you then they ever could be of the other side. We came into the villages and vaccinated people. They came in after we left and chopped the arms off all the children that had needle marks. Who won again?
All wars are won or lost in the will of the people fighting them. If you can break them, they will fall.
I did not realize we were in the business of breaking the will of entire nations... hmm.
Drop a nuke, problem solved. Your concept is weak, and needs larger explosives to work. Hundreds does not compare to thousands, hence you need to kill millions.
DUH!
The problem with dropping a nuke is that you have no idea where to drop it. That's the same problem we ran into when the idea was fielded in 'nam. And nukes just don't have the same effect psychologically as a pyramid of severed heads.
BaronIveagh wrote:Um, actually, brutality worked all through the middle ages, and the twentieth century throughout most of the world where it was used. I might point out that separating them has failed miserably every time we've done it, I draw your attention to the Villes.
One thing people don't get: you don't kill one person. You kill five hundred. You make them far more afraid of you then they ever could be of the other side. We came into the villages and vaccinated people. They came in after we left and chopped the arms off all the children that had needle marks. Who won again?
All wars are won or lost in the will of the people fighting them. If you can break them, they will fall.
I did not realize we were in the business of breaking the will of entire nations... hmm.
Drop a nuke, problem solved. Your concept is weak, and needs larger explosives to work. Hundreds does not compare to thousands, hence you need to kill millions.
DUH!
The problem with dropping a nuke is that you have no idea where to drop it. That's the same problem we ran into when the idea was fielded in 'nam. And nukes just don't have the same effect psychologically as a pyramid of severed heads.
BaronIveagh wrote:The problem with dropping a nuke is that you have no idea where to drop it. That's the same problem we ran into when the idea was fielded in 'nam. And nukes just don't have the same effect psychologically as a pyramid of severed heads.
Hogwash, blow them into pieces and forget the psychological warfare. That is the obvious way to solve any problem, so just support the nuke, and take your fancy-pants psychology elsewhere!
I'm sorry if I need to spell out the fact I meant terrorists. Acts of terrorism are referred to as crimes against the country. I have NEVER heard a DNR official use the phrase "you committed a crime against the country" when arresting someone for poaching.
I know what I was talking about, I just didn't think someone with an IQ above 20 would need it spelled out and drawn in crayon.
Keep it up Shuma and I might just give Frazz a reason to give you a vacation.
You KNOW what I meant with my post. You are just attacking it to get a rise out of me.
BaronIveagh wrote:Not really. civilians are everywhere, something the military can't really do.
Heck, look at 9/11. It wasn't the armed forces that heroically gave their lives to stop the terrorists on flight 93. It was everyday people.
The first line of defense of any nation is it's people.
True that, I always refer to combat situations in the context of a conventional war. Which we might never see again.
BTW, you are dead on about insurgency, the only way to beat them is to utterly annhinlate them and everything around them. Cruel it may be, but it is damn effective.
Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.
Fateweaver wrote:I'm sorry if I need to spell out the fact I meant terrorists. Acts of terrorism are referred to as crimes against the country. I have NEVER heard a DNR official use the phrase "you committed a crime against the country" when arresting someone for poaching.
I know what I was talking about, I just didn't think someone with an IQ above 20 would need it spelled out and drawn in crayon.
Do you actually mean, "convicted of terrorist acts"? Crayons wouldn't be crisp enough, I recommend pastels; that way you can get all of the subtle blending into your drawing.
You KNOW what I meant with my post. You are just attacking it to get a rise out of me.
I didn't know what you were saying, because I am not psychic, and frankly, I pay little attention to the history of your personal narrative.
BaronIveagh wrote:Not really. civilians are everywhere, something the military can't really do.
Heck, look at 9/11. It wasn't the armed forces that heroically gave their lives to stop the terrorists on flight 93. It was everyday people.
The first line of defense of any nation is it's people.
True that, I always refer to combat situations in the context of a conventional war. Which we might never see again.
BTW, you are dead on about insurgency, the only way to beat them is to utterly annhinlate them and everything around them. Cruel it may be, but it is damn effective.
Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.
I am a fan of kill them till they stop coming.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:I'm sorry if I need to spell out the fact I meant terrorists. Acts of terrorism are referred to as crimes against the country. I have NEVER heard a DNR official use the phrase "you committed a crime against the country" when arresting someone for poaching.
I'm sorry if I need to spell out the fact I meant terrorists. Acts of terrorism are referred to as crimes against the country.
Is it so hard to actually say what you are intending to say? You wouldn't have to spell it out for people if you coherently stated it the first time. A crime against the u.s. is any violation of federal law, that is how it's been for a very long time. It's part of the legal system. It's part of the language used in the legal system. Drop the lip, it's not helping anything and it's not my fault you used a common phrase to mean something totally different than what it actually means.
I am a fan of kill them till they stop coming.
You shouldn't be. It's how you end up losing. America can't fight six billion seven hundred million people, and thats exactly what that sort of policy would end up causing. Even then, if all you're going to do is just kill everyone why would you even want to go to their country in the first place? It's not like it accomplishes anything when you're just going to put a bullet into everything that moves.
Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.
What, Shuma, you think that this is NEW? They had the same thing all over the Pacific. Tell me the difference between a kamikazi and a suicide bomber? (other then one drives a truck and one flies a plane.)
Stormrider wrote:I am a fan of kill them till they stop coming.
"Kill them all", actually makes some amount of sense... not exactly genius, but it is better than "Blow up a few more of them, that'll show em'."
There is no reason why they would ever stop coming, especially since conditions will worsen, and Jihad rhetoric will gain a stronger foothold because of it. If I saw my family blown up, I would be hard pressed not to have a deep-seeded hatred of whoever did it. The more families that are blown up, the more angry kids are left out in the cold, with nowhere to turn but violence.
Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.
What, Shuma, you think that this is NEW? They had the same thing all over the Pacific. Tell me the difference between a kamikazi and a suicide bomber? (other then one drives a truck and one flies a plane.)
You can't hide a Zero in your jacket while you smile and walk into a storefront. As soon as you manage to minaturize aircraft to the point where an insurgency can hide them on their person, blend in with civilians, and then HIT YOU WITH THEIR PLANE you come and tell me. Until then they have absolutely the feth nothing to do with eachother.
I'm not going to edit my post. Crimes against the US generally mean acts of terrorism. Shuma knew what I intended and I assumed everyone else did to. He attacked my post (as per usual) and blatantly told me I didn't know what I meant with my own post.
Hijacking planes and blowing up subways or schools or churches is a terrorist act; a crime against the country. Hunting illegally is not a crime against the country (actually it's a crime against the state as hunting laws are not Federally regulated so actually Shuma you are wrong that poaching is a crime against the US). The Federal government did not create nor does it regulate hunting laws.
With any luck he'll be gone for a while. I know what my post intended and I apologize I didn't spell it out but I know for a fact the way Shuma attacked it that he knew what I was talking about. Again, I'm not taking the bait.
Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.
What, Shuma, you think that this is NEW? They had the same thing all over the Pacific. Tell me the difference between a kamikazi and a suicide bomber? (other then one drives a truck and one flies a plane.)
You can't hide a Zero in your jacket while you smile and walk into a storefront. As soon as you manage to minaturize aircraft to the point where an insurgency can hide them on their person, blend in with civilians, and then HIT YOU WITH THEIR PLANE you come and tell me. Until then they have absolutely the feth nothing to do with eachother.
I don't notice them hiding trucks full of explosives or 747's under their coats, either. While the view of the dynamite vest wearing suicide bomber is popular, and occasionally there are those, most effective attacks are done with truckloads of explosives. (And drop a zero out of the sun, it's just as surprising.)
I'm not going to edit my post. Crimes against the US generally mean acts of terrorism.
Thats incorrect. It's not going to become true just because you keep saying it.
huma knew what I intended and I assumed everyone else did to. He attacked my post (as per usual) and blatantly told me I didn't know what I meant with my own post.
I read your post. Your post said people committing crimes against the u.s. In standard parlance that means anyone committing a crime against u.s. law while within the u.s. I read what you posted. I didn't read what you meant to post because apparently you decided not to post that but instead posted what you did. Which is totally different.
Hijacking planes and blowing up subways or schools or churches is a terrorist act; a crime against the country. Hunting illegally is not a crime against the country (actually it's a crime against the state as hunting laws are not Federally regulated so actually Shuma you are wrong that poaching is a crime against the US). The Federal government did not create nor does it regulate hunting laws.
It does in national wildlife preserves! Though you're quite right. I should have listed shoplifting as my minor crime instead.
With any luck he'll be gone for a while. I know what my post intended and I apologize I didn't spell it out but I know for a fact the way Shuma attacked it that he knew what I was talking about. Again, I'm not taking the bait.
You posted three times and I didn't even put any bait out.
Shuma, enjoy your vacation. You earned it.
I replied to your post as you wrote it. I didn't bait you and I didn't flame you. Your issues are your own, and four other posters took issue with what you posted as well.
You shouldn't be. It's how you end up losing. America can't fight six billion seven hundred million people, and thats exactly what that sort of policy would end up causing. Even then, if all you're going to do is just kill everyone why would you even want to go to their country in the first place? It's not like it accomplishes anything when you're just going to put a bullet into everything that moves.
I can be a fan of whatever I want, and we aren't fighting every human being in the world. My definition of "them" could be anyone.
Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.
What, Shuma, you think that this is NEW? They had the same thing all over the Pacific. Tell me the difference between a kamikazi and a suicide bomber? (other then one drives a truck and one flies a plane.)
You can't hide a Zero in your jacket while you smile and walk into a storefront. As soon as you manage to minaturize aircraft to the point where an insurgency can hide them on their person, blend in with civilians, and then HIT YOU WITH THEIR PLANE you come and tell me. Until then they have absolutely the feth nothing to do with eachother.
I don't notice them hiding trucks full of explosives under their coats, either. While the view of the dynamite vest wearing suicide bomber is popular, and occasionally there are those, most effective attacks are done with truckloads of explosives. (And drop a zero out of the sun, it's just as surprising.)
Are you really trying to go here? Are you seriously comparing military planes to civilian vehicles? A plane can be heard, seen, shot down, and would be detected the moment it hit the radar net of one of the most heavily monitored skies on the planet. A truck just needs to be on the road to look like it belongs. They are not the same. They are nothing alike. What the Americans faced in the pacific was totally different. The japanese didn't park their zeroes on the american ships then set off the explosives inside. The americans probably would have noticed the attempt. They had to survive quite a bit of flak fire to even try to strike a sizeable and well armored military target. A bomber parks his car outside of a building totally undetected and sets off the explosives hidden inside. You know this, why am I telling you this?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:
I am a fan of kill them till they stop coming.
You shouldn't be. It's how you end up losing. America can't fight six billion seven hundred million people, and thats exactly what that sort of policy would end up causing. Even then, if all you're going to do is just kill everyone why would you even want to go to their country in the first place? It's not like it accomplishes anything when you're just going to put a bullet into everything that moves.
I can be a fan of whatever I want, and we aren't fighting every human being in the world. My definition of "them" could be anyone.
But if you kill all the orks we will lose the orkmoticons .
Are you really trying to go here? Are you seriously comparing military planes to civilian vehicles? A plane can be heard, seen, shot down, and would be detected the moment it hit the radar net of one of the most heavily monitored skies on the planet.
I didn't notice us shooting down any of those 747s...
Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.
What, Shuma, you think that this is NEW? They had the same thing all over the Pacific. Tell me the difference between a kamikazi and a suicide bomber? (other then one drives a truck and one flies a plane.)
You can't hide a Zero in your jacket while you smile and walk into a storefront. As soon as you manage to minaturize aircraft to the point where an insurgency can hide them on their person, blend in with civilians, and then HIT YOU WITH THEIR PLANE you come and tell me. Until then they have absolutely the feth nothing to do with eachother.
I don't notice them hiding trucks full of explosives under their coats, either. While the view of the dynamite vest wearing suicide bomber is popular, and occasionally there are those, most effective attacks are done with truckloads of explosives. (And drop a zero out of the sun, it's just as surprising.)
Are you really trying to go here? Are you seriously comparing military planes to civilian vehicles? A plane can be heard, seen, shot down, and would be detected the moment it hit the radar net of one of the most heavily monitored skies on the planet. A truck just needs to be on the road to look like it belongs. They are not the same. They are nothing alike. What the Americans faced in the pacific was totally different. The japanese didn't park their zeroes on the american ships then set off the explosives inside. The americans probably would have noticed the attempt. They had to survive quite a bit of flak fire to even try to strike a sizeable and well armored military target. A bomber parks his car outside of a building totally undetected and sets off the explosives hidden inside. You know this, why am I telling you this?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:
I am a fan of kill them till they stop coming.
You shouldn't be. It's how you end up losing. America can't fight six billion seven hundred million people, and thats exactly what that sort of policy would end up causing. Even then, if all you're going to do is just kill everyone why would you even want to go to their country in the first place? It's not like it accomplishes anything when you're just going to put a bullet into everything that moves.
I can be a fan of whatever I want, and we aren't fighting every human being in the world. My definition of "them" could be anyone.
But if you kill all the orks we will lose the orkmoticons .
Are you really trying to go here? Are you seriously comparing military planes to civilian vehicles? A plane can be heard, seen, shot down, and would be detected the moment it hit the radar net of one of the most heavily monitored skies on the planet.
I didn't notice us shooting down any of those 747s...
Those had hundreds of people on board and the event was disconnected from any insurgency or military operation. Also there is no parallel here to events in the pacific (you could cite pearl harbor, but those are only similar in that they both used things with wings).
Shuma wrote:Those had hundreds of people on board and the event was disconnected from any insurgency or military operation. Also there is no parallel here to events in the pacific (you could cite pearl harbor, but those are only similar in that they both used things with wings).
I remember the talk about shooting down planes, very clearly. If I heard about it in that day, I can rest assured that the option was there, unless I want to string together a random 9/11 Anti-government documentary.
Shuma appears to be right, BTW. I really don't follow what Baron is on about.
Are you really trying to go here? Are you seriously comparing military planes to civilian vehicles? A plane can be heard, seen, shot down, and would be detected the moment it hit the radar net of one of the most heavily monitored skies on the planet.
I didn't notice us shooting down any of those 747s...
Those had hundreds of people on board and the event was disconnected from any insurgency or military operation. Also there is no parallel here to events in the pacific (you could cite pearl harbor, but those are only similar in that they both used things with wings).
I think their trying to compare kamikaze attacks to 9/11 not conventional air war.
Are you really trying to go here? Are you seriously comparing military planes to civilian vehicles? A plane can be heard, seen, shot down, and would be detected the moment it hit the radar net of one of the most heavily monitored skies on the planet.
I didn't notice us shooting down any of those 747s...
Those had hundreds of people on board and the event was disconnected from any insurgency or military operation. Also there is no parallel here to events in the pacific (you could cite pearl harbor, but those are only similar in that they both used things with wings).
I think their trying to compare kamikaze attacks to 9/11 not conventional air war.
But the kamikaze attacks were a form of conventional air war. They were made possible by the japanese militaries air branch, and they were used against military targets. It's tangentially related, but not meaningfully so, and it doesn't do much to support his point about civilian bombing tactics in insurgency warfare not being a new thing.
Actually, the kamikazi's were not conventional warfare at the time, and were quite shocking to American servicemen.
However, Shuma, if you insist that it cannot be done by regular military forces, let's really go back in time:
1920: the Wall Street Bombing. A group calling itself the American Anarchist Fighters detonated a 100 pound improvised explosive device with another 500 pounds of sash weights for anti-personnel effect, outside the headquarters of JP Morgan at 23 Wall Street. 38 people were killed.
If you want a more famous group, the IRA has been hitting targets since the 1930's with things like bicycle bombs.
BaronIveagh wrote:Um, actually, brutality worked all through the middle ages, and the twentieth century throughout most of the world where it was used. I might point out that separating them has failed miserably every time we've done it, I draw your attention to the Villes.
You’ll need to explain the continued effectiveness of partisan groups on the Eastern Front throughout WWII. These were groups that weren’t even particularly attached to their own governments at the start of occupation (in Russia many were actively hostile) yet the Nazis, who didn’t lack for brutality, failed to limit partisan activities in any measurable way.
After that you’ll need to explain the failure of every single strategic bombing campaign to quell the civilian population into surrender. The London bombing only increased resolve of its citizens, the bombing of Berlin reduced the city to rubble and despite being led by a complete loon the German people didn’t change sides, the bombing of Hanoi didn’t stop North Vietnam.
One thing people don't get: you don't kill one person. You kill five hundred. You make them far more afraid of you then they ever could be of the other side. We came into the villages and vaccinated people. They came in after we left and chopped the arms off all the children that had needle marks. Who won again?
Dude, you guys were strategically bombing Hanoi, the problem wasn’t with being too nice. The problem was with conditions of engagement that made it impossible to inflict a complete conventional defeat of the NVA, the actual Viet Cong was all but destroyed by the end of the war.
All wars are won or lost in the will of the people fighting them. If you can break them, they will fall.
Yes, they are. The point is to realise the killing 500 civilians hurts the resolve of your side more than it hurts there’s. What violent act have you ever seen that made you think ‘right they’re pretty strong I better change sides’? After 9/11 were you more keen to fight AQ, or more keen to open negotiations and see what they
wanted?
Fateweaver wrote:I'm not going to edit my post. Crimes against the US generally mean acts of terrorism.
Generally it means treason and the like, attacks against national security, not against the civilian population. It’s what I originally assumed you meant.
Given that you mean terrorists, there are a lot of problems with how loosely terrorism is defined. A lot of reports stating hundreds of instances of terrorism on US airlines were stopped have, on closer inspection, been shown to be mostly instances of people refusing to wear seatbelts, or being abusive to waitstaff. Not really incidents that someone should lose their citizenship over.
I mean seriously dude, Glenn Beck argues that prosecution of terrorists should follow the constitution.
BaronIveagh wrote:Um, actually, brutality worked all through the middle ages, and the twentieth century throughout most of the world where it was used. I might point out that separating them has failed miserably every time we've done it, I draw your attention to the Villes.
You’ll need to explain the continued effectiveness of partisan groups on the Eastern Front throughout WWII. These were groups that weren’t even particularly attached to their own governments at the start of occupation (in Russia many were actively hostile) yet the Nazis, who didn’t lack for brutality, failed to limit partisan activities in any measurable way.
I'm going to point out that all of them were rapidly going down the toilet by the end of 1944. Tito has lost over 300,000 men, and was almost as hated by his own people as the Nazis were. Estonia's partisans had been largly turned in by thier own people (who had formed their own SS division), and were replaced by Soviet paratroopers in an attempt to restart them. Bulgaria's resistance was down to 9k men. Albania's had nearly collapsed entirely, having been driven into the hills. Fortunately for them, the onrushing tide of Soviet armies caused the governments oppressing them to flee for their lives.
For an example of what happened to the resistance movements not friendly to the Soviets, see what happened to Lithuania's partisans.
sebster wrote:
After that you’ll need to explain the failure of every single strategic bombing campaign to quell the civilian population into surrender. The London bombing only increased resolve of its citizens, the bombing of Berlin reduced the city to rubble and despite being led by a complete loon the German people didn’t change sides, the bombing of Hanoi didn’t stop North Vietnam.
Conversely, I might point out that it did quell Japan, Hitler was almost assassinated by his own people, with Admiral Canaris trying to secretly negotiate a possible surrender, and people overlook that bombing London was not (originally) to force a surrender, but to gain strategic air control for a cross channel invasion. As fr as Hanoi goes: Operation Linebacker I-II were not directed against civilian targets: we bombed the airfields and SAM sites. Only about 1,600 people died.
If we had bombed Hanoi to quell the population, it would have looked like this:
This is Tokyo. This is how you bomb a city to quell the population. 1.700 tones of jelled fuel and magnesium. 100,000 dead. 1 million homeless. 16 square miles of devastation.
sebster wrote:
One thing people don't get: you don't kill one person. You kill five hundred. You make them far more afraid of you then they ever could be of the other side. We came into the villages and vaccinated people. They came in after we left and chopped the arms off all the children that had needle marks. Who won again?
Dude, you guys were strategically bombing Hanoi, the problem wasn’t with being too nice. The problem was with conditions of engagement that made it impossible to inflict a complete conventional defeat of the NVA, the actual Viet Cong was all but destroyed by the end of the war.
That was entirely the problem. See above. The objective was not to kill the civilian populace but to disable the North's airbases.
sebster wrote:
All wars are won or lost in the will of the people fighting them. If you can break them, they will fall.
Yes, they are. The point is to realise the killing 500 civilians hurts the resolve of your side more than it hurts there’s. What violent act have you ever seen that made you think ‘right they’re pretty strong I better change sides’? After 9/11 were you more keen to fight AQ, or more keen to open negotiations and see what they wanted?
I'll point out that 9/11 was inefficient at it's aims, and it's target selection was poorly chosen. And, if we followed my above 1 for 500 model, that would be 1.5m. I doubt there would be any AQ left at that point.
Fateweaver wrote:I'm not going to edit my post. Crimes against the US generally mean acts of terrorism. Shuma knew what I intended and I assumed everyone else did to. He attacked my post (as per usual) and blatantly told me I didn't know what I meant with my own post.
Hmm, no, your post whilst obviously being clear to you in refering only to terrorists and not any criminal did not have any such stipulations listed with it, it's not unreasonable for other posters to read what you have actually typed and then attack your thoughts and arguments as actually presented. If you wish to stop this from happening then pease take a little more care and time when expressing yourself to fully convey exactly what you mean.
Shuma, enjoy your vacation. You earned it.
You really want to stop this.
Well, it's been another fun thread on the OT board, that astonishingly enough has moved away from a brief clip or two from comedy shows to WW II, 9/11 and children proclaiming we should just, I dunno, kill'em all and let god sort them out.Bless.
)
.
