CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war [Archive]

Gawain of Orkeny

06-23-2005, 00:37

MSNBC Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/)
MSNBC.com
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror

By Andrea Mitchell

A career CIA officer claims in a new book that America is losing the war on terror, in part because of the invasion of Iraq, which, he says, distracted the United States from the war against terrorism and further fueled al-Qaida’s struggle against the United States. The author, who writes as “Anonymous,” is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and still works for the intelligence agency, which allowed him to publish the book after reviewing it for classified information.

In an interview with NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, he calls the U.S. war in Iraq a dream come true for Osama bin Laden, saying, “Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never thought he’d get.” By invading a country that’s regarded as the second holiest place in Islam, he asserts, the Bush administration inadvertently validated bin Laden’s assertions that the United States intends a holy war against Muslims.

In his book, titled "Imperial Hubris," he calls the Iraq invasion "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat,” arguing against the concept of pre-emptive war put forward by President Bush as justification for the Iraq war...[snip]

...My own opinion is we should err on the side of protecting Americans first. And if we make a mistake in that kind of action, I think the American people will accept that. It's — this is a matter of survival. This is not a nuisance anymore. No one wants to be bloodthirsty, but we're at a position in this war where we've cornered ourselves in many ways, to the point where only the military option is available to us. And if we don't use that, and we continue to pursue the policies we are pursuing, then it's a very dicey situation for America…that the war in Iraq was bin Laden's dream come true."

Mitchell: "You've said that you think the war in Iraq motivated bin Laden. What do you think the impact of the war in Iraq was on bin Laden?"

Anonymous: "Bin Laden, I think, and al-Qaida and other of America's enemies in the Islamic world certainly saw the invasion of Iraq as a, if you would, a Christmas gift they always wanted and never expected to get. It validated what they all said about American aggressiveness against Islam. It made us the occupiers of the second holiest place for Muslims in the world. In fact, now we are occupying, in the eyes of our opponents, we're occupying the two holiest places, Saudi Arabia, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and the Israelis are occupying the third, in Jerusalem. The reaction of the clerical community to our invasion of the Islamic clerical community to our invasion of Iraq was uniformly negative."

Mitchell: "So what, what is the war in Iraq to bin Laden?

Anonymous: "It is, I think, a proof of his thesis that America is malignantly inclined toward Muslims, that it is willing to attack a Muslim country that dares to defy it, that it is willing to do most anything to defend Israel. It's certainly viewed as an action which is meant to assist the Israeli state. It is in every way predictably, if you will, a godsend for those Muslims who believe as bin Laden does."

Mitchell: "It's a dream come true."

Anonymous: "If you're familiar with that wonderful Christmas movie, ‘The Christmas Story,’ at the end of the day, Ralphie getting his air rifle even though his mother was worried his eye would get shot out. It's a terrific gift."

"It is, I think, a proof of his thesis that America is malignantly inclined toward Muslims, that it is willing to attack a Muslim country that dares to defy it, that it is willing to do most anything to defend Israel.

Only an idiot would say this or a Muslim fanatic. This guys credibility flew out the window with that statement.

KukriKhan

06-23-2005, 00:57

Ummm, I think he's trying there to answer Ms. Mitchell's question: "...what is the war in Iraq to bin Laden?", not what he, Mister Anonymous believes.

That's one ugly (and long) copy/paste job, Gawain; shall I fix it?

PanzerJaeger

06-23-2005, 05:58

JAG

06-23-2005, 06:24

It scares me how many otherwise clear thinking, rational people truly believe America's foreign policy is dictated by Israel. Some of the stuff I read on this board about the Jews controling America is like - and yes Im making one of those Nazi references I posted about - Hitler revisited.

I think Kukri has answered your problem with the guy here.

This guy is stating pretty much word for word what the majority of the anti war - and growing anti war - crowd has been stating for a long time now. And the reality remains, he and the rest of those against the war stand corrected by the evidence we see before us.

PanzerJaeger

06-23-2005, 07:08

The point I was making is that people seem to be continuing the idiotic Jewish conspiracy theories that existed prior to WW2.

If this rather small group of people have been running the world, why have they had so much trouble and tradgedy? I wonder what this CIA agent has to say about that?

I can understand kicking the arabs and I can understand kicking the blacks(although I dont agree with it), but ive never understood kicking the Jews. They dont cause trouble and they are never a liability on society.

JAG

06-23-2005, 07:11

You havent made a comment on what this CIA guy has to say, what is your response to him?

PanzerJaeger

06-23-2005, 07:12

I am of the same opinion Gawain is. Anyone who envokes Israeli control of US policy loses all credibility.

Red Harvest

06-23-2005, 07:17

His basic statement is correct. The invasion of Iraq was a boost to Osama. Osama wasn't getting help from Saddam. Saddam was a secular tyrant. While I am in full agreement Saddam needed to go (not for WMD reasons though), I'm not too pleased with the way the immediate post war phase was executed. Poor follow up, a Whitehouse, State Dept. problem, not the military. You need to work fast to win hearts and minds while the power vacuum exists. Instead they fumbled around and ended up in reactive mode vs. proactive mode.

While Iraq has been good for fueling Osama supporters, Osama was a critical component of Dubya's re-election. There was an awful lot of fear mongering going on about how Kerry (an actual combat vet...who wasn't AWOL during the war) would let Iraq fall to terrorists...yada, yada, yada.

JAG

06-23-2005, 07:23

I am of the same opinion Gawain is. Anyone who envokes Israeli control of US policy loses all credibility.

But as I already stated, Kukri answered that by pointing out it ISN'T in his opinion that, that is the case, but he believes that is what the war has helped achieve in the minds of AQ.

...

So what do you think of his views now?

Franconicus

06-23-2005, 07:26

It scares me how many otherwise clear thinking, rational people truly believe America's foreign policy is dictated by Israel. Some of the stuff I read on this board about the Jews controling America is like - and yes Im making one of those Nazi references I posted about - Hitler revisited.
Cmmon Panzer, that is the same story we discussed in the Hitler/Nazi threat. Say US = Isreal = Devil many of the Muslim fundamentals will support your fight against the US. They just hate Isreal. Then you do not need any further argument against the US. So do not take this for serious, take it for what it is - dangerous.

Spetulhu

06-23-2005, 11:19

I can understand kicking the arabs and I can understand kicking the blacks(although I dont agree with it), but ive never understood kicking the Jews. They dont cause trouble and they are never a liability on society.

Huh? You kick a man when he's down, not because he deserves it but because it makes you feel good. Jews are different , that's reason enough to kick them.

Franconicus

06-23-2005, 11:56

:mask: CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war

Alert! Alert! We have CIA spies in the backroom! Panic! :shocked2:

Idaho

06-23-2005, 13:08

Fragony

06-23-2005, 13:26

Ser Clegane

06-23-2005, 13:33

Well I believe this to be true, so shoot me. Maybe not 'controlled' but certainly regulated.

I can only repeat my question from the other thread - if this was the case, how are they doing it?

Fragony

06-23-2005, 13:56

I can only repeat my question from the other thread - if this was the case, how are they doing it?

Very secretly ~D One only has to look at some of the incidents, Israel has sunk USA ships, stole atomic secrets, bulldozered their citizens (which was taped) and they always get away with it. Now is that america's undying love, or maybe there was some pressure. Being labeled as 'antisemite' is euthanesia for the career, that is a powerfull tool. So how do they do it, by exploiting our collective feeling of guild.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-23-2005, 14:07

But as I already stated, Kukri answered that by pointing out it ISN'T in his opinion that, that is the case, but he believes that is what the war has helped achieve in the minds of AQ.

No he didnt. He gave his opinion on what he thought the guy meant. This though is clearly not the case. The guy said

"It is, I think, a proof of his thesis that America is malignantly inclined toward Muslims, that it is willing to attack a Muslim country that dares to defy it, that it is willing to do most anything to defend Israel.

"I think", that refers to him does it not? " a proof of his thesis" The he is Bin Laden is it not?

If I were to say something proved Hitlers theseis on the Jews I would be agreeing with Hitler would I not?

Ser Clegane

06-23-2005, 14:08

Yep - that about sums you up Panzer - an :furious3:

Please refrain from making such baits - even if you leave it to the fantasy of the adressee and other patrons to reaplce the smilie with a word, the intention of this post seems rather clear - and I would be hard-pressed to interpret it in any other way than a apersonal attack or a bait.

If you feel that a patron's opinion on an issue is out of place, please comment on the opinion.

Ser Clegane

06-23-2005, 14:13

"I think", that refers to him does it not? " a proof of his thesis" The he is Bin Laden is it not?

If I were to say something proved Hitlers theseis on the Jews I would be agreeing with Hitler would I not?

But the question he was asked is

"So what, what is the war in Iraq to bin Laden?"

So his answer is:

"It is, I think, a proof [to bin Laden]of his thesis

He is clearly not stating his opinion on the issue but his opinion on BL's reasoning

Gawain of Orkeny

06-23-2005, 14:18

He is clearly not stating his opinion on the issue but his opinion on BL's reasoning

Clearly his opinion is that Bin Laden is correct.

English assassin

06-23-2005, 14:20

I can understand kicking the arabs and I can understand kicking the blacks(although I dont agree with it), but ive never understood kicking the Jews.

Well, I am certainly glad we have set out once and for all the acceptable forms of racism.

I really can't think of an appropriate response to this. I'm stunned.

Fragony

06-23-2005, 14:23

Indeed. I may be a bigot but at least I don't discriminate, I hate them all ~D

Sjakihata

06-23-2005, 14:25

I think can mean several things. It can mean I am of the opinion of... or it can mean I guess.

Seems obvious, when connected to the question, that he is guessing.

Ser Clegane

06-23-2005, 14:29

Clearly his opinion is that Bin Laden is correct.

No, he does not. He only states what he believes the Iraq war is to bin Laden (that is what he is asked for).
He neither was asked for his opinion on the Iraq war, nor did he state his opinion on the Iraq war.

If somebody asked me
"What do you think is the refusal of the UN to approve the Iraq war to Gawain?"

My answer woould be:
"It is, I think, a proof of his thesis that the UN is a worth less organisation"

I think, considering the original question is is rather clear, that this opinion about the UN is yours and not necessarily mine

Granted, it would be even clearer if I answered:
"To him it is, I think, a proof of his thesis that the UN is a worth less organisation"

But that does not change the meaning of the first version.

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

06-23-2005, 14:29

Tribesman

06-23-2005, 14:35

And it's pretty clear that Gawain chose to understand it another way because he does not like this guy other answers and wish to paint him in a dark light...
Is that the explanation for a long cut and paste , so he can find one thing that he can misinterpret and therefore call the whole article lacking in credibility ~;)

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

06-23-2005, 14:39

I can understand kicking the arabs and I can understand kicking the blacks(although I dont agree with it), but ive never understood kicking the Jews. They dont cause trouble and they are never a liability on society.

Although you might not be really aware of it and have tried to the best of your ability not to join the racist choir (see: "although I don't agree with it" it being the kicking), this post is still unacceptable.

I'd not go in the semantics of understanding while not agreeing.
But I'd be happy to hear about your underlying statement that Jews don't cause trouble and have never been a liability on society: the only way I understand it is: Jews don't cause trouble and are not a liability, but arabs and blacks are causing trouble and are a liability... Nice implicit statement...

I am neither black nor arab, but when I read this, I sure feel I am their dear human brother.

Let me know check if there is an ignore feature on this board, and have a nice day,

Louis,

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

06-23-2005, 14:41

Fragony

06-23-2005, 14:47

And it's pretty clear that Gawain chose to understand it another way because he does not like this guy other answers and wish to paint him in a dark light...

Had the same guy answered the same exact answer to the same exact question, but had supported GWB and his decision to go to war, you would not have read about it from Gawain...

Louis,

I believe he deserves a bit more credit then that.

But let's look at the article, so the Iraq war has strengthened Bin Laden because of the oh so holiness of Iraq, now Baghdad may be a holy city but it aren't the americans that are killing iraqi's right now. It is the terrorist cause doing that, and it is crumbling under it's own popular weight and there isn't a damn thing uncle bin can do about it, except quiting. With every attack popular support for the mostly foreign terrorists is hurt, Bin Laden and his exploding goats playing tonight in Baghdad, nah. They are defeating their own cause because they are so very very stupid. This CIA man may be right about the way some muslims think, but what can these muslims really do? Carry on soldiers.

PanzerJaeger

06-23-2005, 15:03

Although you might not be really aware of it and have tried to the best of your ability not to join the racist choir (see: "although I don't agree with it" it being the kicking), this post is still unacceptable.

I'd not go in the semantics of understanding while not agreeing.
But I'd be happy to hear about your underlying statement that Jews don't cause trouble and have never been a liability on society: the only way I understand it is: Jews don't cause trouble and are not a liability, but arabs and blacks are causing trouble and are a liability... Nice implicit statement...

I am neither black nor arab, but when I read this, I sure feel I am their dear human brother.

Let me know check if there is an ignore feature on this board, and have a nice day,

Louis,

LoL if were going by implied statements - then ill just call you for what you are - an anti-american. Even though youve never said you hate America, many of your posts imply that in my opinion.

I learned a long time ago that if you try to read more into someone's post than what is written, you turn out to be wrong most of the time because you insert your own bias and opinions about that person into the mix.

I said nothing racist in my post, only that I understand why people would be racist against those groups.

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

06-23-2005, 15:10

Right.... ~D

Considering I lived 3 years in the US and got many friends there (including Republicans), I sure feel like you mistake "un-american" with "anyone disagreeing with me".

But you're going off topic here. Please explain what "They dont cause trouble and they are never a liability on society" means when opposing jews to blacks and arabs?

Louis,

Gawain of Orkeny

06-23-2005, 15:10

And it's pretty clear that Gawain chose to understand it another way because he does not like this guy other answers and wish to paint him in a dark light...
Had the same guy answered the same exact answer to the same exact question, but had supported GWB and his decision to go to war, you would not have read about it from Gawain...

Oh is it? Here I go and give you guys 3000 words of ammo and you accuse me of posting this to make Bush look good? Besides how many times have I stated I was against invading Iraq? My position has always been once we send the troops in we have to back them 100%. Ive also critized Bush about many things.

Also remember this is the same CIA who didnt predict 911, still cant find Bin Laden, said that Saddam had WMDs and ties to AQ just for starts. Now it doesnt take the CIA to figure out what this guy is saying. Many here have been stating exactly that for over a year. Do you guys have spies? The point is this war has to be fought somewhere. Of course when theres a war fighters on both sides who live through combat become veterans. The idea is not to let many survive. Its like saying in MTW dont attack a unit because you may raise its valor. This is basic war 101. These people will hate us no matter what we do. Theres no appeasing them. Their like rabid dogs.

PanzerJaeger

06-23-2005, 15:41

Considering I lived 3 years in the US and got many friends there (including Republicans), I sure feel like you mistake "un-american" with "anyone disagreeing with me".

Ahh, you see what happens when someone uses what they feel you have implied as an attack against you? Maybe you have learned something today. :book:

Please explain what "They dont cause trouble and they are never a liability on society" means when opposing jews to blacks and arabs?

I meant exactly what I said. Jews dont seem to ever cause trouble and are never a liability on society. They are responsible, upstanding citizens for the most part.

Why dont you and all your republican friends( ~:rolleyes: ) sit down and try and figure out what "I dont agree with that" means and how it applies to my initial post.

Idaho

06-23-2005, 17:22

Please refrain from making such baits - even if you leave it to the fantasy of the adressee and other patrons to reaplce the smilie with a word, the intention of this post seems rather clear - and I would be hard-pressed to interpret it in any other way than a apersonal attack or a bait.

If you feel that a patron's opinion on an issue is out of place, please comment on the opinion.

You go ahead and defend his frankly disgusting remarks if you like. If you think such comments are ok then continue your tolerance of them.

Idaho

06-23-2005, 17:29

I meant exactly what I said. Jews dont seem to ever cause trouble and are never a liability on society. They are responsible, upstanding citizens for the most part.

You must spend a fortune on breath mints Panzer as you talk such sh*t.

Meyer Lansky (http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters/meyer/main.htm) Israel organised crime (http://www.janes.com/security/law_enforcement/news/jir/jir050617_1_n.shtml) Racial Violence in the East End of London (http://www.eastlondonhistory.com/rocker%20fermin.htm)

PanzerJaeger

06-23-2005, 17:38

Please dont get so angry Idaho. I sincerely apologize for saying something nice about the Jews. Silly me..

Really though, how long did it take you to dredge up 2 articles about things that happened decades ago and one about Israeli syndicates that consist of Russians and Christian Arabs? :book:

English assassin

06-23-2005, 17:43

Please dont get so angry Idaho. I sincerely apologize for saying something nice about the Jews. Silly me.. :

So its OK to make racist comments so long as you support jews?

Man oh man, you are so far out of line with your bloody Panzer this and your Konservative that and your I understand why you would kick the blacks and you just have no clue do you? Do you not see it or do you not give a .... ?

Red Harvest

06-23-2005, 17:45

Ser Clegane

06-23-2005, 17:49

Do we get prizes in the backroom? ~;)

No people only get points here - but for some reason they usually do not appreciate it :embarassed:

PanzerJaeger

06-23-2005, 17:52

So its OK to make racist comments so long as you support jews?

Man oh man, you are so far out of line with your bloody Panzer this and your Konservative that and your I understand why you would kick the blacks and you just have no clue do you? Do you not see it or do you not give a .... ?

Maybe I didnt make myself clear, english isnt my first language. Heres what I said.

I can understand kicking the arabs and I can understand kicking the blacks(although I dont agree with it), but ive never understood kicking the Jews. They dont cause trouble and they are never a liability on society.

Possibly you misinterpreted me. I can understand why people who hate arabs hate them and i can understand why people who hate blacks hate them, ive never been able to understand where anti-semitism comes from. Understanding a mindset does not mean I subscribe to it, or do you disagree?

Tribesman

06-23-2005, 18:31

Do we get prizes in the backroom?
No , but we can get warnings ~;)

Gawain of Orkeny

06-23-2005, 18:32

Bingo! We have a winner. Give the man a prize! Do we get prizes in the backroom?

Did you even bother tor read my reply? He was off base. I never siad the article lacked credibiity . In fact I even said any fool could figure out what he was claiming is so without using the CIA. Its pure common sense. Better go look for a cupie doll elsewhere.

Tribesman

06-23-2005, 18:35

I can understand why people who hate arabs hate them
But as you have stated previously that you hate arabs (amongst other races)does it not follow from that statement that you hate blacks as well as you understand why people hate them ?

ICantSpellDawg

06-23-2005, 18:40

Maybe I didnt make myself clear, english isnt my first language. Heres what I said.

Possibly you misinterpreted me. I can understand why people who hate arabs hate them and i can understand why people who hate blacks hate them, ive never been able to understand where anti-semitism comes from. Understanding a mindset does not mean I subscribe to it, or do you disagree?

to be honest - what you said was totally racist

you said that people hate arabs - and you understand why
people hate blacks - you understand why but do not agree
people hate jews - you do NOT understand why and you do not agree

by reading your post it would seem that you hate arabs, firstly
tho i think that you meant the "though i dont agree with it" to cover both the hatred of arabs AND blacks - even though it was written as a defense of only the blacks

now, i dont care - i believe that most of us hate or resent things that are different from us and that it is natural to do so - but to selectivly not understand why people hate things while understanding why they hate others is a bit naive

how many jews do you know?
how many arabs?
how many blacks?

peoples perceptions of the "enemy" rely on how much contact they have with them and how they act relative to the stereotypes

Tribesman

06-23-2005, 18:41

I never siad the article lacked credibiity
~D ~D ~D
Post #1
This guys credibility flew out the window with that statement.
That small statement that you highlighted and repeated , out of all that was in the article , to show that it lacked credibility .

Gawain of Orkeny

06-23-2005, 18:46

This guys credibility flew out the window with that statement.

Yes his but not everything he said. Again only a fool would deny that the fighting is teaching them how to fight better. Its the nature of the beast. I could have told you that when I was 10.

That small statement that you highlighted and repeated , out of all that was in the article , to show that it lacked credibility .

Your doing the same to me as I did to this guy. Because I may have misinterpreted one thing he said you are trying to make out that I am not credible. Once more that was the only part of his article I dissagreed with. Thats why its the only comment I made on it .

PanzerJaeger

06-23-2005, 19:45

But as you have stated previously that you hate arabs (amongst other races)does it not follow from that statement that you hate blacks as well as you understand why people hate them ?

Back that up or take it back. Ive never said that I hate arabs.

by reading your post it would seem that you hate arabs, firstly
tho i think that you meant the "though i dont agree with it" to cover both the hatred of arabs AND blacks - even though it was written as a defense of only the blacks

Yes thats what I meant. Would it be proper english to say "I understand why people hate arabs(although i do not agree) and i understand why people hate blacks(although i do not agree)."? I thought that in english the () applied to both races.

Tribesman

06-23-2005, 20:16

Back that up or take it back. Ive never said that I hate arabs.

Really , you call them all animals (is that equivalent to sub-human) , but then again you have said that the Hmong are all animals as well so its nice to see its not only arabs who fail to meet your standards , you said they should all be barred from entering the US , you should overthrow all of their governments and make them live under American rule .
Oh but you did say that you didn't really want to kill all of them , so the hatred cannot be that deep then can it .

And that was all (apart from the Hmong) taken from just one topic this week , would you like some more ?

PanzerJaeger

06-23-2005, 20:20

Where did I call all arabs animals? I called palestinians animals because of their suicide bombing, but after closer examination of the numbers I took that comment back.

And that was all (apart from the Hmong) taken from just one topic this week , would you like some more ?

I would like you to show me where I said I hate arab people or take back what you said.

Byzantine Prince

06-23-2005, 20:26

Do we get prizes in the backroom?
No , but we can get warnings ~;)
As if... There's so much rasism here one would think this is a white supremacist website.

All I did was insult republicans and tell someone they don't know anything and look at my warning level. :embarassed:

Idaho

06-23-2005, 21:02

Really though, how long did it take you to dredge up 2 articles about things that happened decades ago and one about Israeli syndicates that consist of Russians and Christian Arabs? :book:

You are simply not intelligent enough to understand the significance of those articles - and the significance of the points in history they describe.

East End of London and in New York at the turn of the century, Jews were a recent immigrant group - and poor. They were involved in crime. Had a bad reputation...etc. Oh look at Israel. Lets take a peek to see who the most recent poor immigrant group are - shock! The Russian Jews. What a stunning coincidence they are involved in crime and have a bad reputation. Who'da thunk it eh?

doc_bean

06-23-2005, 21:03

As if... There's so much rasism here one would think this is a white supremacist website.

All I did was insult republicans and tell someone they don't know anything and look at my warning level. :embarassed:

How can you still post with a ban ?

PanzerJaeger

06-23-2005, 21:25

You are simply not intelligent enough to understand the significance of those articles - and the significance of the points in history they describe.

East End of London and in New York at the turn of the century, Jews were a recent immigrant group - and poor. They were involved in crime. Had a bad reputation...etc. Oh look at Israel. Lets take a peek to see who the most recent poor immigrant group are - shock! The Russian Jews. What a stunning coincidence they are involved in crime and have a bad reputation. Who'da thunk it eh?

So whats your point? Some criminals decades ago were Jewish and a large part of the criminal element in the Jewish State is - shocker - jewish.. Youve really proven something here. ~:rolleyes:

You'll have to post a lot more articles to convince me that Jews are bad people.. I just dont buy it. The one's that live around here are upstanding citizens and kind people.

Ser Clegane

06-23-2005, 21:41

The one's that live around here are upstanding citizens and kind people.

Funny - the same can be easily said about Arab and black people... go figure.

I guess prejudices are just that - prejudices, regardless whether you talk about Jews, Arabs or black people.

Sounds simple, yet this simple truth is often neglected by too many people.

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

06-24-2005, 09:00

You'll have to post a lot more articles to convince me that Jews are bad people.. I just dont buy it. The one's that live around here are upstanding citizens and kind people.

And no need to post any article at all to convince you that blacks and arabs are bad people... You can understand why people would kick them...

And regarding being anti american... You must be kidding ~D

I mean: I can understand why someone would punch Republicans in the face, I can understand kicking the conservatives (although I don't agree with it) but Democrats I don't understand. They are respectfull of other people way of life and never act like moronic gun loving maverick.

How do you dare calling me anti american? ~D

Louis,

PS: at that point, it ought to be taken to the watchtower... That looks like an interesting way to insult people.

bmolsson

06-24-2005, 10:05

CIA seems to be masters on being wrong, so why would we believe them this time ??

Idaho

06-24-2005, 10:08

So whats your point? Some criminals decades ago were Jewish and a large part of the criminal element in the Jewish State is - shocker - jewish.. Youve really proven something here. ~:rolleyes:
As I said, and as you have just confirmed, you aren't intelligent enough to make the connection between poverty, societal alienation and criminality. Unfortunately for the rest of us you insist on inflicting your tedious, ignorant and outmoded opinions on the rest of us.

English assassin

06-24-2005, 11:05

Ok, I am calmer this morning, and possibly some of my language yesterday was a bit het up. If so I apologise

Lets leave it at this. PJ, if you say "I understand why people would kick the blacks, but I don't agree with it", many people, myself included, will regard that as a racist statment. And I don't consider myself PC.

There are two problems with it. First, and most fundamentally, the compendious reference to "blacks". A colleague of mine is a senior accountant in a london investment bank. He is black. Gangsta rapper 50 Cent is black. They are both "blacks", yet I would struggle to find anything remotely alike between them. So how can you understand someone kicking "blacks"?

Secondly, yes, there are some world views that even to understand is a bit dodgy. You might, maybe, get away with "X was the only white kid at his school and he was bullied by bigger black kids all his childhood so I can understand why he doesn't like blacks." But you didn't say that. You said you understood people generally kicking blacks generally, and the reason seemed to be that blacks make trouble and jews dont. (It wasn't completely clear whether you consider that "blacks" make trouble or whether you were saying that is what other people think). Actually being able to understand that viewpoint, other than in terms of some people being ignorant and small minded, is suspicious, yes. If you don't want to be misunderstood I would humbly suggest that you need a stronger qualifier that "I don't agree with it".

My last word.

PanzerJaeger

06-24-2005, 15:04

As I said, and as you have just confirmed, you aren't intelligent enough to make the connection between poverty, societal alienation and criminality. Unfortunately for the rest of us you insist on inflicting your tedious, ignorant and outmoded opinions on the rest of us.

What does alienation and poverty have to do with blacks, arabs, jews or anything else about this conversation?

Are you trying to say that arabs and blacks are poor, and Jews arent? That would be tacitly saying that arabs and blacks do cause more trouble than Jews - something I never said.

It seems in your defense of those two races you have 1) called them poor, and 2) called them criminals.

Now how about stop calling people stupid who you dont agree with and explain yourself. You see, thats what a forums is - a place to come and discuss different viewpoints.

Personally I think the opinions you express on here are some of the most ignorant Ive heard, but i dont simply call you an idiot and move on. I try to come to an understanding - then we both at least benefit by knowing the viewpoint of our opponent.

PanzerJaeger

06-24-2005, 15:15

There are two problems with it. First, and most fundamentally, the compendious reference to "blacks". A colleague of mine is a senior accountant in a london investment bank. He is black. Gangsta rapper 50 Cent is black. They are both "blacks", yet I would struggle to find anything remotely alike between them. So how can you understand someone kicking "blacks"?

I understand that intolorence toward blacks is a holdover from slavery and the perception they are worth less than white people. Therefore, those who kick blacks wouldnt distinguish between 50 cent and your banker friend. Hatred toward blacks is purely racial, whereas hatred toward arabs is racial in some parts of the world, and based on terrorism and such in other parts of the world.

Secondly, yes, there are some world views that even to understand is a bit dodgy.

Thats almost Orwellian dont you think? I know someone famous said "Know your enemy." or something to that effect.

In my opinion, everyone should be taught in history or sociology class the viewpoints of racists along with everyone else. If those viewpoints dont hold up to scrutiny, then there is nothing to be worried about.

Idaho

06-24-2005, 15:31

Personally I think the opinions you express on here are some of the most ignorant Ive heard, but i dont simply call you an idiot and move on. I try to come to an understanding - then we both at least benefit by knowing the viewpoint of our opponent.

Laughable piffle as ever. You have said:

You'll have to post a lot more articles to convince me that Jews are bad people.. I just dont buy it. The one's that live around here are upstanding citizens and kind people

And I have shown examples where Jews have been a criminal underclass. And you have simply been unable or unwilling to look at these sociological features. Instead you have looked around your wealthy suburb and decided from your lofty vantage point that blacks are worthy of kicking and Jews are all alright.

PanzerJaeger

06-24-2005, 15:37

And I have shown examples where Jews have been a criminal underclass. And you have simply been unable or unwilling to look at these sociological features. Instead you have looked around your wealthy suburb and decided from your lofty vantage point that blacks are worthy of kicking and Jews are all alright.

Now who is being stupid? Show me where I ever said blacks were worthy of kicking, or admit that was a lie.

You are so caught up in your politically correct bubble, the very thought of someone actually understanding the nature of racism sends you into a fit. Or was it the fact that someone said something nice about those damned Jews.. ~:confused:

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

06-24-2005, 15:40

Can I have some cookies too?

Louis,

econ21

06-24-2005, 15:50

PanzerJager, there's a case for "understanding" racism in an academic way but it is a potential minefield and has to be handled with great care.

Frankly your original post that caused offence was not recognisably "academic". Your statement about whole population groups which did or did not "cause trouble" or were a "liability to society" was too much of a vague and unsubstantiated generalisation to be useful starting point for discussion. Moreover, the implication that two big population groups did "cause trouble" and were a "liability to society" was at best careless and likely to insult and provoke, as it did.

I have to agree with the PC stance on generalisations about race, nationality etc. There's a real danger making value-laden generalisations about large population groups. It's very tempting - we know there are cultural (and indeed physical) differences between population groups - and it's natural to want to remark on them. I think it's fine if done benignly to praise a group. For example, I can't help admiring the remarkable contribution of the Jewish people to scholarship: Marx, Freud, Einstein etc... it's hard to ignore. Or alternatively, discussing differences between population groups is fine if done carefully in a scientific spirit - I have no problem discussing race differences in IQ in pyschology or educational journals etc. But once you start implicitly condemning or putting down one population group - "causing trouble" or "being a liability" - you are handling poison.

Personally, working at university with a pretty international student body and faculty, I find it very hard to understand racism. I meet outstanding and admirable young people and scholars of all kinds. I can't understand why some folk would want to tar them all of one population group with the same brush, unless those folk are ignorant, unthinking or malign. My attitude towards racists is rather like than of Gene Wilder in "Blazing Saddles":

You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

I'm not accusing you of racism, PJ, but I am trying to explain why your original post provoked controversy.

PanzerJaeger

06-24-2005, 17:18

I understand that my original statement was carelessly worded and I explained myself to the best of my ability.

However, Im not going to let people who obviously have some sort of vendetta against me because of my username(EA) or political stance(Idaho) take advantage of an opportunity to attack me.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-24-2005, 17:52

I can see why the US attacked Japan but I cant understand why we attacked Germany. Does that mean I that the Japanese?

English assassin

06-24-2005, 18:22

I can see why the US attacked Japan but I cant understand why we attacked Germany. Does that mean I that the Japanese?

It means you have forgotten that Hitler declared war on the US not vice versa.

PJ as I said some of my language may have been intemperate. I do think an enthusiasm for the armed forces of the third reich is another one of those thibngs to be taken with caution but it can be and often is perfectly innocent.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-24-2005, 22:30

It means you have forgotten that Hitler declared war on the US not vice versa.

My question was hypothetical. I fully realise what happened. Nice dodge.

Tribesman

06-24-2005, 23:26

Does that mean I that the Japanese?
No you is not that the Japanese , you is that the American ~;)

sharrukin

06-24-2005, 23:41

I can understand kicking the arabs and I can understand kicking the blacks(although I dont agree with it), but ive never understood kicking the Jews.

Saying that you understand the motivations in a case does not imply agreement with it. I understand why the Nazi's exterminated millions of Jews, and why the Soviets exterminated millions of Ukrainians but that in no way suggests I agree with such evil conduct! Saying that you understand the motivations of a serial killer doesn't imply support for his killing spree. Panzerjager made it clear in the post that he DID NOT agree with such conduct. Perhaps he should have gone to extra care because of the nature of the subject. When he subsequently made it abundantly clear that he did not agree with such conduct towards blacks or arabs, it should have ended there. Carrying on with the possibility of an implied meaning that might be imbedded in the paragraph is simply playing word games.

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

06-27-2005, 08:54

Sure, saying that you understand someone else motivation does not mean you support the acts commited by the person whose motivation you understand.
Understanding someone else motivation or feeling is empathy, a basic tenet of humanity.

I would have no issue with that, although I'd find the choice of word "kicking" to be interesting.
It's the second part, the one you conveniently forgot to quote that is interesting. That's where PJ means that: Jews are not liability in a society and don't cause trouble, whereas black and arabs... ~:eek: :dizzy2:

I can understand kicking right wing dumb trolls, I can understand punching conservative selective quoter (although I don't agree with it). But spammers, I can't understand. They don't insult anybody like dumbass and are sincerely, fully aware what they do is wrong; however they are nice enough to keep it in appropriate thread.

Louis,