I am Big Brother.
Sorry, no one is off-limits for criticism. I don't say that everyone who simply disagrees with my politics is racist against white people. Everyone is entitled to have their opinion heard if they can back it up. You make yourself look like a child who can't have a civil debate without stomping your feet and turning red. You refuse to or are not able to take a stand and support it with arguments based in logic and data. If you don't want to risk being criticized for your views why do you just shit on mine without saying why you disagree and on what data or experience you are basing your point of view?
tldr;
You are too immature to take part in a meaningful conversation.
tldr;
You are too immature to take part in a meaningful conversation.
I disagree with your opinions Flymike, but I agree on your last post at same time. Sometimes we just have to agree that we disagrees, but as long as it is possible to actually have an discussion back are forth where the veiwpoints and presented and discussed civilized / sivilized (how is that word spellled?), it is a good discussion.
I guess someone called you a racist. I'm happy to concede you're not a racist. What worries me is your contentedness to write off such a vast proportion of humanity as violent or even psychopathic but ignore the glaring flaws of your own society at the same time.
If you just wanted the world to be a better place then you probably wouldn't have so many people arguing with you, but that's not what you want. What you want is to demonstrate how your culture is better than everybody else's culture. You don't give a shit about most of the people on the planet, only those who grew up in the sort of culture that you grew up in.
Can't you see that that's something of a character flaw?
he is american + he has a character flaw => he is not perfect => americans are not perfect => his world view is shattered => EXTERMINATE!
I have to say I'm pretty disappointed with Obama so far. I lived in the USA when Clinton was in office and despite previously running a redneck state and putting people to death for whatever crimes they put people to death for, he was a pretty liberal president. Much more so than Obama.
I suppose Obama has improved healthcare for the poorest people in society. That's a real achievement in a country that is almost universally opposed to the concept of taxation.
I suppose Obama has improved healthcare for the poorest people in society. That's a real achievement in a country that is almost universally opposed to the concept of taxation.
Didn't y'all try that once before?
I hope I haven't implied that I don't care about people who have to live under Islamic law, I do care especially for the women who are treated as less than second-class citizens. No one could watch that video about acid attacks and not care about what Islamic law means for women wherever it exists. However I do feel that Muslims who believe Sharia is oppressive and medieval and move to London instead of working and fighting to abolish Islamism cannot rightfully complain that we don't do enough for them as immigrants.
Our Western society is born out of the hundreds of years of horrific warfare that was waged from before the Dark Ages all the way to WWII. Probably billions of our ancestors died in battle and disease to make our culture and society what it is today and in my opinion it could not have been created any other way. Every time there was a major war in Europe or between Western nations, there was a step made towards the relatively peaceful future that we are living in now. In the US we fought the Civil War because it was the only way we could take that step towards liberty and end slavery. In Europe, the terrible Thirty Years' War and English Reformation took God himself from the sole ownership of the Clergy and political power from the nobility and were each huge steps towards modern democracy and national sovereignty. If we did not fight those wars and countless like them we would have continued to suffer and stagnate like Muslims do in their countries today. But we did fight those wars and we now reap the benefits.
There is no substitute for war to make major shifts in a civilization. If it is true that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are ready to get with the program and live under secular laws and governments and go to space and invent useful technology and all the other things with us then they should have no problems destroying the minority of people, governments, and religious institutions that are holding them back at a level at least 100 years behind us. It doesn't mean they have to stop believing in Allah and worship Jesus, but separating the politics from the religion of Islam will take an effort at least on par with the Reformation. The effort is not ours to make.
If they don't have the will to fight and die in maybe many wars against Islamism then they will never rise to our level if that is truly what they want. We cannot fight those wars for them nor is mass immigration an expensive 100 year shortcut and I think that is pretty obvious from what we're seeing. If they think it will be easier to change us to tolerate the politics and oppression of Islam than it is to change themselves and take the heavy steps towards freedom then it will be us fighting a war to make them sink so we can continue to rise. In my opinion the latter is more likely for many reasons you could imagine, but the former would certainly be less painful though not painless by any means. We don't deserve to have to fight their fight for them.
I also believe the US citizens will fight a hopefully short war within 40 years to keep us free from our government, and by doing so take yet another step as a society towards a better future if we succeed. That's a story for another thread but it illustrates the point that no one can make progress without believing in it enough to die for it. It flies right in the face of our expectation of instant gratification to think we may not survive to see what we're fighting for.
There is no indication I can see that we are done warring to secure our secular, technological future. In 200 years we will have seen many more wars and many more steps towards great things we don't even know about yet. I hope people will write about us as the ones who lived right before Islamic fascism fell once and for all, a violent culmination of 2000 years of warfare and strife that brought the deserts out of the darkness. I would rather Muslims get to take all the credit for themselves just the same as we can take the credit for what we have created without assistance or outside money.
Our Western society is born out of the hundreds of years of horrific warfare that was waged from before the Dark Ages all the way to WWII. Probably billions of our ancestors died in battle and disease to make our culture and society what it is today and in my opinion it could not have been created any other way. Every time there was a major war in Europe or between Western nations, there was a step made towards the relatively peaceful future that we are living in now. In the US we fought the Civil War because it was the only way we could take that step towards liberty and end slavery. In Europe, the terrible Thirty Years' War and English Reformation took God himself from the sole ownership of the Clergy and political power from the nobility and were each huge steps towards modern democracy and national sovereignty. If we did not fight those wars and countless like them we would have continued to suffer and stagnate like Muslims do in their countries today. But we did fight those wars and we now reap the benefits.
There is no substitute for war to make major shifts in a civilization. If it is true that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are ready to get with the program and live under secular laws and governments and go to space and invent useful technology and all the other things with us then they should have no problems destroying the minority of people, governments, and religious institutions that are holding them back at a level at least 100 years behind us. It doesn't mean they have to stop believing in Allah and worship Jesus, but separating the politics from the religion of Islam will take an effort at least on par with the Reformation. The effort is not ours to make.
If they don't have the will to fight and die in maybe many wars against Islamism then they will never rise to our level if that is truly what they want. We cannot fight those wars for them nor is mass immigration an expensive 100 year shortcut and I think that is pretty obvious from what we're seeing. If they think it will be easier to change us to tolerate the politics and oppression of Islam than it is to change themselves and take the heavy steps towards freedom then it will be us fighting a war to make them sink so we can continue to rise. In my opinion the latter is more likely for many reasons you could imagine, but the former would certainly be less painful though not painless by any means. We don't deserve to have to fight their fight for them.
I also believe the US citizens will fight a hopefully short war within 40 years to keep us free from our government, and by doing so take yet another step as a society towards a better future if we succeed. That's a story for another thread but it illustrates the point that no one can make progress without believing in it enough to die for it. It flies right in the face of our expectation of instant gratification to think we may not survive to see what we're fighting for.
There is no indication I can see that we are done warring to secure our secular, technological future. In 200 years we will have seen many more wars and many more steps towards great things we don't even know about yet. I hope people will write about us as the ones who lived right before Islamic fascism fell once and for all, a violent culmination of 2000 years of warfare and strife that brought the deserts out of the darkness. I would rather Muslims get to take all the credit for themselves just the same as we can take the credit for what we have created without assistance or outside money.
But what about all the Wars after WW pt2, surely, by your statement, thats what defines Western Society today ?
Your currently involved in about 70 wars !
Their problem is that their governments, check the Gulf states, are put into power by the US, when the people attempt to overthrow their corrupt rulers, the US arms the govt to ensure the uprising doesn't affect US interests.
Well, if you stopped oppressing the people who are under US puppet control, and attacking independent states who commit the sin of having an independant banking system that would be a great help for them moving forward socially.
Thank you, that last paragraph clearly sum's up US policy. Shame it contradicts the previous ones.
Yes, we all know that stated US policy is all world assets belong to the US, yes, we all know you have a never ending 'War on Terrortm', ( actually, any country that has resources the US wants ).
But what gets me is that I fully understand having this business model if your making great money from it, after all, crime should pay. But why do US citizens, who are being shafted by this as well, keep on supporting it ?.
Yes, "USA, USA" etc but surely most of you are capable of working out that if you stop attacking countries and people the rest of the world wouldnt keep thinking your all brainwashed.
Thats where my question, Why do YOU hate Muslems comes from. We're all human, all the same, different views but (generally) no one wants to attack the US, Al Queda is your own 'boogieman', the sort of story you use to scare kids at night.
So, have a think, why do you personally feel Muslims ( or any group ) are a direct threat to you.
Because! Muslims are the arch enemy obviously. They have been sent from God to extinguish all Americans and promote Allah.
Thus it is Americas only goal to exterminate the Muslims before the muslims exterminate the Americans.
Thus it is Americas only goal to exterminate the Muslims before the muslims exterminate the Americans.
I said exactly the opposite, that we don't need to fight in the Middle East and you are right that it benefits me in no way that we are constantly meddling with them. If the trillions we flushed on the wars and "Arab Spring" bs were invested by private citizens and companies instead we would have already solved the problems of energy and probably so much more. It is shameful that we gave up our goals in space for nothing. This government is a failure in everything except self-service and would be better just doing the bare minimum that is required so that private citizens can spend their productiveness and money to constantly grow and improve and innovate. Are we in agreement?
Assuming none of that changes, a civilian conflict between radicalized Muslims and Western Europeans (which can includes NATO allies) is inevitable, and that is more like the kinds of formative and important wars I was talking about above like the wars of reformation or the American Revolution.
Japan doesn't have terrorist bombings or decapitation in the streets and they have enemies just as resentful as we do if not more. Perhaps they do not pick up people from the worst places in the world like Mogadishu and try to live with them? They protect their culture and face fewer challenges to their societal and technological goals from outside influences.
Even if the UN or US never meddled in the Islamic world again, I don't think it would immediately launch Muslims 100 years ahead so they can built space ships with us. They will still need to fight wars to reform Islam and to effectively neuter its hegemonic political power as was done with Christianity in the UK during reformation. Political Islam, Islamism, as it exists today simply has no role to play in the future of our countries, but for them it will have to work until they can change it for themselves because I don't want to pay for it.
Because when I watch a video with hundreds of Muslims in the streets calling for death to whites and the domination of Islam, I know that they can do that because they're not at work, meaning we are paying for them to wage a war of ideology against us which we are unable to respond to ("racist"). I know that the majority are full of shit, or just want to rabble-rouse, but there will always be many men in the crowd, the ones who take advantage of the freedoms of our society to say and do what we would be arrested for
who are dead serious about doing exactly what they say they are going to do.
Assuming none of that changes, a civilian conflict between radicalized Muslims and Western Europeans (which can includes NATO allies) is inevitable, and that is more like the kinds of formative and important wars I was talking about above like the wars of reformation or the American Revolution.
Japan doesn't have terrorist bombings or decapitation in the streets and they have enemies just as resentful as we do if not more. Perhaps they do not pick up people from the worst places in the world like Mogadishu and try to live with them? They protect their culture and face fewer challenges to their societal and technological goals from outside influences.
Even if the UN or US never meddled in the Islamic world again, I don't think it would immediately launch Muslims 100 years ahead so they can built space ships with us. They will still need to fight wars to reform Islam and to effectively neuter its hegemonic political power as was done with Christianity in the UK during reformation. Political Islam, Islamism, as it exists today simply has no role to play in the future of our countries, but for them it will have to work until they can change it for themselves because I don't want to pay for it.
Because when I watch a video with hundreds of Muslims in the streets calling for death to whites and the domination of Islam, I know that they can do that because they're not at work, meaning we are paying for them to wage a war of ideology against us which we are unable to respond to ("racist"). I know that the majority are full of shit, or just want to rabble-rouse, but there will always be many men in the crowd, the ones who take advantage of the freedoms of our society to say and do what we would be arrested for
who are dead serious about doing exactly what they say they are going to do.
Ignoring Japan has the highest suicide rate almost in the world and still remains a place of great gender inequality? Also ignoring that in order to present themselves as a peaceful and unified country, they often turn a blind eye to issues that will make them lose credibility such as nuclear polution and acknowledging war crimes?
If you trust me as someone who has much more exposure to Japanese people and Japanese culture, it has it's own devil and their self enclosure mentality is a major part of it.
You have also ignored the fact that most traditional Japanese culture you now speak of originated from China, and in Meiji revolution Japan also went through rapid and large scale westernization, so your argument both in logic, and in reality, fall flat on its face.
Your problem isn't that you are inherently hateful or racist, but just that you are happy to convince yourself by generalization and jumping to conclusion: a simple Utopian worldview base on racial purity - when such thing does not exists. There's nothing as pure race or pure culture if you look back long enough.
Another food for thought, if isolation from foreign culture is beneficial, why ain't North Korea is best country on earth?
Japan has its own problems which are unique to them which I believe they can solve far more easily than creating peace in the Muslim world, I guess the best you can say about them is that they are peaceful and they do have a singular drive to advance technology and science. If we're comparing cultures you could do worse, many do.
Now that you mention it, its strange that a culture that advances so quickly technologically tends to get a bit stuck progressing culturally. Obviously there will never be (or was) a totally homogeneous English speaking culture and I do not call for that, only that we carefully choose amongst potential immigrants both to weed out people who hold any anti-western views, and also to accept only the most qualified people. Why wouldn't we? Shouldn't we try to fill every job possible with a natural born citizen before we bring in more people to support? That also applies to the policy of paying more money per child born in welfare is beyond insane to me. What do we gain by accepting 'refugees' (the term is overused) and non-skilled immigrants that we could not gain by letting them fight for freedom and opportunity by their own devices. RacerX can tell you that we always fk it up so why even get involved? The survival of the fittest part isn't over yet! We would be better off encouraging trade as an incentive for incremental progress towards acceptable human rights and representative governments, selling technology and infrastructure to them also without providing simply cash or weapons as we have been doing.
When you have no controls on immigration, you are asking for attacks like the ones in Boston or London. All those perpetrators had sketchy past histories of seeking training from terrorist groups in or near the countries they came from. Tell me that isn't a case of the governments putting citizens in harm's way to avoid awkward conversations with radicals about their vacation!
Fair point, I'll be more careful about how I describe Western culture.
Now that you mention it, its strange that a culture that advances so quickly technologically tends to get a bit stuck progressing culturally. Obviously there will never be (or was) a totally homogeneous English speaking culture and I do not call for that, only that we carefully choose amongst potential immigrants both to weed out people who hold any anti-western views, and also to accept only the most qualified people. Why wouldn't we? Shouldn't we try to fill every job possible with a natural born citizen before we bring in more people to support? That also applies to the policy of paying more money per child born in welfare is beyond insane to me. What do we gain by accepting 'refugees' (the term is overused) and non-skilled immigrants that we could not gain by letting them fight for freedom and opportunity by their own devices. RacerX can tell you that we always fk it up so why even get involved? The survival of the fittest part isn't over yet! We would be better off encouraging trade as an incentive for incremental progress towards acceptable human rights and representative governments, selling technology and infrastructure to them also without providing simply cash or weapons as we have been doing.
When you have no controls on immigration, you are asking for attacks like the ones in Boston or London. All those perpetrators had sketchy past histories of seeking training from terrorist groups in or near the countries they came from. Tell me that isn't a case of the governments putting citizens in harm's way to avoid awkward conversations with radicals about their vacation!
Fair point, I'll be more careful about how I describe Western culture.
North Korea is the best country on Earth. Haven't you been watching the DPRK State approved propoganda? Americans all live in tent cities and resort to eating other humans in order to survive. Our land is also scorched by nuclear warfare.
Japanese culture isn't as easy to fix as one would think. Things are done very much on pride and respect and if one brings disrespect to themselves and their family.. or does something that's unbecoming.. Suicide does end up being a potential option.
You have CEO's of companies that commit suicide because their leadership wasn't as good as expected.
Japanese culture isn't as easy to fix as one would think. Things are done very much on pride and respect and if one brings disrespect to themselves and their family.. or does something that's unbecoming.. Suicide does end up being a potential option.
You have CEO's of companies that commit suicide because their leadership wasn't as good as expected.
Doubtful, if you want to use everyone to their fullest potential, in countries with more advanced education, where there are more professional/technical jobs, someone with less educational background will have to put out the garbage and wash the dishes, it would be a waste for the highly educated workforce to do these jobs when they can be fully utilized in the global job market - that's when bringing in less educated foreign workers makes a lot of sense.
Job for own citizen first is the attribute of a welfare state - not that I am against welfare states in principle. But if I am qualified for a job elsewhere and they won't allow me in because they need to protect their own people first, then really its their lost in competitiveness.
The best companies in the world, Google, Ferrari...all have an international staff. I think you can tell by now I think the notion of country is an useless segregation; a country is a transitional state created by people killing each other; under the command of power men chasing personal gain: worth shit in my opinion.
And you believed an hour ago the Japanese culture is superior in an non existing way because of an non existing premise: You should be more critical with what you believe.
japan also hasnt been meddling with the middle east for the last 60 or so years or been involved an illegal decade long war in the musilim world
well thats closer to the truth than it should be
for a country that claims to be part of the first world a worryingly large amount of the us population lives in trailers
The worrying thing for me is the selective historical context that he uses to justify his position. Like the way he's chosen to select wars the US has been involved in right up to the end of world war 2. I guess because that's when the USA stopped being 'the goodies' in most of the wars they fought.
And ignoring US involvement in the history of the middle east except the last 20-odd years. The cut-off point is apparently somewhere between the USA invading Iraq in 1991, which did happen and was apparently heroic, and the USA funding Iraq's chemical weapons attacks on Iran, which doesn't get mentioned so much.
The USA's unconditional support and almost complete funding of Israel's lengthy murderous campaign against Palestine does sometimes get mentioned by Americans because their media has always portrayed it as heroic and so most of them think they are 'the goodies' in that scenario. Which I suppose shows how different American perspectives are sometimes to the those of the rest of the world.
And ignoring US involvement in the history of the middle east except the last 20-odd years. The cut-off point is apparently somewhere between the USA invading Iraq in 1991, which did happen and was apparently heroic, and the USA funding Iraq's chemical weapons attacks on Iran, which doesn't get mentioned so much.
The USA's unconditional support and almost complete funding of Israel's lengthy murderous campaign against Palestine does sometimes get mentioned by Americans because their media has always portrayed it as heroic and so most of them think they are 'the goodies' in that scenario. Which I suppose shows how different American perspectives are sometimes to the those of the rest of the world.
Why has 'Attack' been put in inverted commas in the thread title?
Because Mr. Dinglebury isn't very smart.
thought I was pretty clear. We don't need to fight them anymore, but at least Bush had permission from Congress to go to war, unlike Libya which was actually an illegal war but that's not the one anyone wants to mention?
I should mention that I support Israel for many many reasons even if you consider that meddling even though the British created it and Germany made sure it looked like a great place to live. Israel offers more freedom to Muslim women than many Islamic theocracies, allowing them to hold elected positions in the primarily Jewish government. How many Jewish or Christian women serve as politicians in Muslim countries? How many rights do Christians have in Egypt? Israel offers more to the world and their own people than their enemies like Hamas do.
I'm burnt out.
London "Attack"
(187 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG