I am shocked to learn that a new federal law enforcement agency charged with protecting the country has been bogged down by public choice conundrums, petty bureaucracy, and infighting. Who could have predicted this?
I’m not a lawyer, but I think there’s a legal term we use to describe what you’re doing if, while under federal investigation, you destroy any evidence of the possible crimes for which you’re being investigated.
Photos of buzkashi, Afghanistan’s crazy national sport, where the “ball” is a headless goat carcass.
U.K. court says a man’s castle is no longer his home.
Neocon bloodlust really is boundless. This article is just revolting, on a number of levels.
Fantastic Slate slide show on failed architecture.
Massive anti-gang raid in Riverside, California involved 650 local, federal, and state law enforcement personnel. Looks like they hit a number of innocent people, too. (Via Injustice Everywhere.)
Chief Justice of Missouri Supreme Court says jailing non-violent offenders “doesn’t work.”
Come on, guys. Can’t we join together and rebel against the Nanny State by clogging customer arteries peaceably?
This entry was posted
on Friday, February 5th, 2010 at 1:59 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Drug War, Nanny State, Police Militarization.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
Hitting the cocktails a little early today, eh Radley? Support = sport. “castle no longer his home” = “home no longer his castle”.
D’oh! I missed the joke on the second one. Egg on my face!
I find no small irony in someone hellbent on wreaking havoc in the Middle East referring to the leaders of another country as “apocalyptic-minded.”
And the notion that it’s justified because it might be popular based on a few polls is a special kind of evil.
Radley had it right with the 2nd item …
When cops don’t preserve evidence because they weren’t told specifically to do so, then it’s ok because they are robots and only do what they are told. It’s beautiful because the system supports it, so they can say their default actions are anything they want, and then when their actions don’t match the default, they can claim they weren’t told to perform an action other than the default action. WIN WIN WIN!!!
Neocon bloodlust really is boundless. This article is just revolting, on a number of levels.
For the first few paragraphs, I thought the writer was being sarcastic.
Unfortunately, he wasn’t.
For the police, the term is “business as usual”.
@ #1 There are copious amounts of snow falling from the sky in N. Va. Seems like a good reason to hit the sauce ;)
If Obama’s personality, identity, and celebrity captivated a majority of the American electorate in 2008, those qualities proved ruefully deficient for governing in 2009. He failed to deliver on employment and health care, he failed in foreign-policy forays small (e.g., landing the 2016 Olympics) and large (relations with China and Japan). His counterterrorism record barely passes the laugh test.
So, because we didn’t land the boondoggle that is getting the Olympics, we need to piss that money away on another war? Can we at least finish the 2+ wars we’re fighting now?
And I sleep through a major terror attack in 2009? Or is Pipes using the Ft Hood and the underwear bomber as his laugh test?
Ever notice these guys like Pipes have never done anything outside academia or think tanks, yet they rail against it. Pipes was practically raised at Harvard (has father was a professor there) and received his BA and PHD from there as well. Then he’s quoted as saying he has: “the simple politics of a truck driver, not the complex ones of an academic. My viewpoint is not congenial with institutions of higher learning.”
These guys are all punks. They’ve never had to make a living outside academia and live in their own little self reinforcing world. They are the embodiment of the guy who talks shit and then hides while his big brother does the fighting.
The neocons are the ultimate zombies. Nothing seems to kill them off.
these 3rd world terrorists must be laughing harder every day about how stupid we are. They’re playing goat polo and living in shacks with dirt floors and they’ve managed to sucker us into their quicksand. pipes is proof that ‘being educated’ isn’t the same as ‘being intelligent’.
Smedley Butler outed these idiots years ago, but we didn’t listen then, either.
Buzkashi… Rambo played that in one of the movies.
/coolstorybro
“Massive anti-gang raid in Riverside, California”
909 People — get your house in order or da po-pos gonna git ya.
Where’dya think you were living?
I am constantly amazed that not 45 minutes from my house there are neighborhoods I wouldn’t be caught dead in.
It is spreading. Lived in my house for nine years, hardly ever lock my cars or even my front door, pretty safe neighborhood. Car was rummaged through the other night, some minor bs taken, but it’s a harbinger. No more trust, sad to say.
But hey, I was personally introduced to Newt Gingrich last night and shook his hand, so life can’t be all that bad. Imagine if Newt knew I was an anarchist. A little 420 and I bet we could have talked the night away.
John Lennon was wrong, it’s not love you need — it’s weed.
“All you need is weed.” So much more lyrical.
/done now
It’s funny how the mere notion that conservatives would start a war for domestic political gain is practically beyond the pale in our political discourse even as they literally suggest it in print to a sitting president.
ok, so if the US doesn’t take out Iran’s nuclear ambitions where does that leave Israel?
are they going to be stupid enough to let A-dinnerjacket wipe Tel Aviv off the map?
trouble is the Israelis’ probably don’t have the conventional capability to do much more than slow Iran down by a year or 2 and that probably would cause a real mideast war.
but, they do have 3 submarines with cruise missles that are likely nuclear tipped (unless Israels’ nuclear capability is the best kept hoax in modern times) and might decide that national survival trump deference to international sensibilities.
you may say that A-dinnerjacket wouldn’t really nuke Israel but can you be sure? can Israel take that chance?
its fine to look at geopolitics thru the rose colored glasses of libertarianism (full disclosure – i’m registerd libertarian in AZ) but its not realistic.
the world is going to be a MUCH more dangerous place when Iran gets the bomb. better start thinking realistically about what that will mean to those of us “love life” (as opposed to the mad mullahs in Tehran “who love death”).
I think the argument that President Obama should go to war to boost his popularity is awful however, what is a nuclear Iran going to be like? Iran without nukes already likes to flex its muscle, remember the Brittish Sailors fiasco? I don’t expect Isreal is going to sit on their hands forever until Iran gets the bomb. Isreal taking out the french reactor that Iraq had set them back quite a bit. There are some very real threats from Iran that people are not taking seriously. If a nuclear Iran wants to flex its muscle, what are we going to do about it? The real question is, can this be done without another ground war as Pipes suggests?
#14, you talk in absolutes, that your statements are what will happen. One could make equally compelling statements for the exact opposite. To say “this will happen if this and that” is foolhardy, dishonest, and beating the fear drum.
Yeah, pretty easy to sit back and make fun of the neocons, but why not be honest and say you will do nothing to keep Iran from obtaining nukes, followed by doing nothing should they launch on Israel, in which case Israel launches back. Essentially your position boils down to “if it we can’t restrain Iran thru diplomatic means, oh well.”
Here’s some other crap Pipes propagated:
“On his own website and in articles for The Jerusalem Post, Pipes claimed that Barack Obama was a former Muslim.[47] He alleged that Obama falsely claims that he had never been a Muslim, and that “the campaign appears to be either ignorant or fabricating when it states that Obama never prayed in a mosque.”[48] Pipes wrote an article for FrontPage Magazine entitled “Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam.” ”
Pipes is a Neo-Con fifth columnist of the first water. He views the US as a big dumb monster to be incited to destroy the enemies of Israel. Unfortunately, there are a lot of these guys in the corruption that is DC, and they have pretty much accomplished their aim. Now the US has occupied Muslim territories just like Israel has and is hated all over the Muslim world, just like Israel is. And who pays for this? Poor dumb deluded schmucks of US taxpayers. And the abused exploited soldiers whose honor has been totally besmirched by dishonorable liars like Daniel Pipes.
“you talk in absolutes, that your statements are what will happen. One could make equally compelling statements for the exact opposite.”
So make them.
“To say “this will happen if this and that” is foolhardy, dishonest, and beating the fear drum.”
why? You are saying that Iran with nukes…really no big deal. Nothing to see. You think nothing changes?
BamBam,
let me guess, did your ancestors say the same thing about Churchills’ warnings of Germanys designs before WWII?
isn’t there a saying about ignoring history means having to repeat it?
14, 15, 17…
you seem to be advocating more ‘pre-emptive strikes’ against a country that has not attacked us…
a lot of people believed attacking korea, vietnam, cambodia, panama, etc was ‘necessary’, but, in reality- these actions were far from ‘necessary’ and did not benefit anyone.
keynes issued warning about the impact on germany when the versailles treaty was being hammered out…
Pretty damn sure attacking Korea benefited the South Koreans greatly. Vietnam was a pretty direct consequence of backing the French in international incidents after WWII. NEVER BACK THE FRENCH. Rule number one of successful foreign diplomacy. In fact, unless they’ve been invaded always land on the opposite side of the French in any position if they are the first ones to support that position. Had we backed the Vietnamese we quite probably could have kept them from going communist in the first place.
We’re too bogged down to get into another war, no matter how justified it might be (and by that I’m speaking hypothetically – I’m not making the claim war against Iran is justified). If anything, we’d at a minimum need a paygo policy on war. If we want a new one we need to cut one of the existing ones.
I personally don’t like the thought of Iran getting nuclear capabilities. Not so much b/c I”m convinced they’ll starting nuking everyone but b/c for one, they’ll certainly help other people cause mischief with the knowledge/materials and it makes the argument for non-proliferation weaker. Much of the intellectual argument for non-intervention is “Israel has them, why can’t Iran?” and although I don’t necessarily like it, it’s hard to argue with.
Sadly, this is the price we paid for getting into stuff we didn’t need to and shouldn’t have. We can argue all day about whether or not we should do something about Iran – fair enough – but there’s little argument that Iran would be a better candidate to do something about than Iraq was or than Afgh is now.
The world assumes either the US and/or Israel will do something and is hoping they will. This lets them have it both ways. They assume Iran will be addressed yet they can do nothing and rail against either/both of their two favorite whipping boys. I wonder if a completely different approach would be appropriate…. The US and Israel simultaneously saying “We believe Assholijihad that they won’t build nukes. So we’ll let them go. No sanction, no nothing – we’ll take them at their word. Hell, we’ll even join in and help them out.” That would put everyone else in a position to do something for once. Yah, I know it’s not going to happen and would have a ton of downside, but maybe we should be using Aikido instead of Tae Kwon Do for once.
Religious fanatics killing each other makes me happy.
It’s unfortuantely when it spells over to the sane world though.
What would Iran gain from nuking Tel Aviv? Nothing but their own destruction. You think the kids in the street fighting the regime in Iran right now are going to appreciate becoming the second country to use nukes in history? Of course not. If Tehran wasn’t a glass parking lot, the regime would fall from within anyway. The Iranian regime wants to perpetuate itself just like any other rational human. This “loving death” stuff is non-sense.
That’s horseshit Bill. It’s very easy to argue that Israel can have nukes and that Iran can’t. You simply point out that Israel has never threatened with an official state organ to wipe another country off the map. Discussion closed.
Israel has already said that they will not allow Iran to develop nukes. Now, I think they are happy to sit back and let us try to solve the problem for them, but if we don’t, I don’t doubt they will. I don’t think they are bluffing. And if that means full scale war, they will want that to happen before Iran has nukes.
And I fear there is no way that will happen without us becoming involved. We are sitting right there in the middle, controlling a big chunk of the airspace in between. Even if we are dead set on staying out of it, we will either allow Israel free passage through Iraqi airspace, and be considered as much in the war as if we were bombing Iran ourselves, or we will refuse and be called on the carpet for not supporting our ally.
If those two go at it, I just don’t see how we will be left out of it. I don’t want us in it, but I don’t see it happening. Unless they are both kind enough to wait until we are out of Iraq. Which I would not bet on either.
I’ve learned long ago that it’s impossible to have an open, honest, fair debate with people that make statements of “if this then that and this will happen” as if they have the ability to predict the future, or their statements are based on strong evidence. It’s all fear/death/party/go-team-win hyperbole.
Only if you believe the misinterpreted quote is your statement true. Is it ok for Team USA leaders to call for killing/destroying/etc other countries?
Oh yes, Iran is just about to get nuclear weapons… as they have since 1991 as the quote from CATO below shows.
For more, go read here at Fabius Maximus. This will of course probably be completely wasted on the bomb-them-to-hell crowd who are guided by emotions (especially fear and a libido that kicks into overdrive when they see the phallic majesty of a missile) and not intelligence.
So Iran gets nukes and uses them on Israel. Israel can defend itself.
I have no love for the idiots in charge of Iran or any Arab country, but it seems to me like we are spending a grossly disproportionate amount of blood and treasure on another nation’s security, and getting jack sh*t in return.
Why is it that so many architects seem preoccupied with trying to out-ugly the ugliest buildings of their predecessors?
Or to put it another way, why don’t we build stuff with domes, columns, flying buttresses, arches, gothic cathedral spires, bell towers, cupolas, or much of anything else that actually looks nice any more? And why do companies, and especially governments and government-supported “cultural” institutions, spend millions of dollars on “trendy” architects who think a building should look like the product of a failed mating experiment between a Borg cube and a Lysol factory?
Structures should be functional and aesthetically pleasing to look at. Part of that aesthetic is finding the proper way to juxtapose a building with its surroundings. And there are very few places with surroundings that fit 90% of the architectural crap on that list. The only – and notable – exception is the Wright house, which was included on the list for very different reasons than most of the rest.
Let’s not forget March 20, 2003, while we’re at it.
—
The mullahs in Tehran are teetering. The best way to prop them up right now is to attack Iran. The lesson about “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” applies equally well to Iran as it did to Johnson’s England. If the US or Israel attacks Iran, the mullahs will be able to ‘wrap themselves in the {Iranian] flag’ and use the attack as an excuse to crush the emerging democratic opposition.
If you want to prolong the reign of the mullahs, go ahead and attack Iran.
So,
“This “loving death” stuff is non-sense.”
Please look at Maj Hassans’ (the Ft Hood shooter) PowerPoint presentation. It includes that exact quote.
It is not reasonable to assume that a nations leaders will not have the same willingness to die for Allah as an individual. Especially since they have said that the sacrifice of even a few million Muslims would be worth the price of destroying Israel. You may think they’re not serious but if someone tells me over and over again he means to kill me and IS actively seeking the means to do so I’d take him seriously.
But hey, all of us “neocons” who are “bloodthirsty” for a “war” (except that a surgical airstrike requireing no boots on the ground as Israel did in 1981 to take out Iraqs reactor is something less than a “war” – hell even Clinton lobbed a few cruise missles when he thought it expeditious) have been proven by the learned responses here that are fears are groundless and when Iran has the bomb it will all be sweetness and light.
Sorry but the world will be a MUCH MORE DANGEROUS place when they do. That is an absolute.
We’ll soon find out though (unless Israel acts first) because Obambi will never do that. Not even to save his Presidency. He is too much a wuss, and he’s already burnished his inner “hawk” by escalating Afghanistan, he’ll not not confront a major Muslim country.
I’ve always thought that the idea of an afterlife in paradise was tantamount to loving death. I mean, if paradise is so much better than life on Earth, why wait?
Man, the haters are out in force. Pity.
The idea that we should bomb Iran requires a leftist’s faith in government. It requires an arrogance beyond measure. It requires a deep ignorance of history and a good deal of moral and intellectual cowardice (the collateral damage wouldn’t include American civilian men, women, and children, so bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran!).
Pakistan, Russia, China, and Israel have the bomb. All of these countries are dangerous and the last three have demonstrated a clear propensity for invading other states. If we could live with the U.S.S.R. having the bomb, there’s no reason for armchair warriors to wet their pants at the idea that Iran could have one.
Cynical,
If “the haters are out in force” is aimed at me then I’ll respond thusly -
I’m not religious (though I was born into a Methodist home) and I don’t care what fantasy anyone wants to belive, assuming that fantasy doesn’t justify violence upon another.
Now, from my meagre experience with Christianity I would say that in general that faith does glorify life and I haven’t seen any suggestion that it encourages your own death. Indeed, suicide was seen as an affront to Gods gift of life so man’s laws were made to forbid it. Also, the concept of self-defense is justified (in part at least) because to let someone else take your life is also an affront to God. No, the concept of a wonderful afterlife in Christianity doesn’t seem to have the same point of reference as it does in Islam.
So, pointing out that Islam, in the main and by individual statments strongly suggests that the whole point of life is die and meet Allah, and that the quickest way to heaven is to die killing an infidel, I don’t think is “hatefull”. Nor is it somehow contradicted nor made untrue by Christians concept of an afterlife. No, pointing out the desire for death that exists in Islam is just the truth.
spoliation
@ scott in phx az | February 5th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Your gloss on Christianity is completely at odds with its history, which has at its base the notion that man (and the world) is inherently sinful and in a fallen state. ["In Adam's fall, we sinned all."] From the earliest preachers, Christianity has emphasized the rejection of worldly pleasures and the denial of the flesh. Mortification of the flesh is an ongoing Christian theme (cf. the recent revelations that John Paul II practiced self-flagellation). It was Christians who destroyed the great libraries of the Roman world (our knowledge of Greece and Rome comes mainly through Islamic scholars, BTW.) and destroyed the Roman baths as “sinful” because they glorified the flesh. The anti-trinity of Christian faith was referred to as “The World, The Flesh and The Devil” for over 1000 years.
I do not know the Islamic view of this world, but it cannot be less anti-human that the Christian one.
scott, you seem to be under the impression that there is one interpretation of Islam, which is represented by radical, fundamentalist Muslims. This is really, really ignorant. It’s like saying that Christianity calls for the killing of adulterers and people who work on the Sabbath. It’s true that those sanctions are clearly in the Bible and there are Christians who believe in them, but it would be silly to pretend that this interpretation of the Bible is the only one.
Most Muslims, like most Christians and Jews, are not fundamentalists. And there are a variety of interpretations of Islam which inform a variety of Muslims on “the quickest way to heaven.”
Muslims, like Christians and Jews, are individuals, and should be judged by their actions, not the literal interpretation of their scriptures.
Orielly and John Stewart had a fun exchange on the nuke in Iran thing.
Boyo was trying to get stew worked up over Iran getting a bomb, that they would use it….. stew said, Once! Oh and yes it would be a terrible thing, he is right. They would get one single shot off.
Then the rest of the world can look forward to drilling through the glass bowls of Iran and take all the future oil they will ever need!
Israel has proven in the past they will deal directly with those they perceive to be a great threat if and when they get close enough to actually be one. They take action all by themselves.
Iraq….. check
Syria…. check
Iran …. Pending.. check.
Not directed at you personally Scott, just an observation that the tone of this thread is more hateful than most you’ll find on The Agitator.
Preaching violence to end violence (war to end war???) has always been a difficult circle to square, IMHO.
Of course, those that advocate pre-emptive violence always dress it up as self-defense. I suppose anything could be construed as self-defense when one looks at it that way.
That’s why pacifism has such a strong moral, if not practical, attraction. Pacifism requires loving life so much that one would give it up rather than submit to violent behavior. But I admit that pacifism does not square well with the real world — all humans engage in violence of one shape or another, either directly or by proxy. It is the very fabric of life, this will to control one’s environment — it is the essence of being human.
To tie it all up, Pipes’ essay is a manifestation of this will to control. His point is that a human being should consider other human beings part of the environment that is to be controlled. It is the argument that all statists make, and it is where statists and individualists part company, with individualists striving to exempt other humans from control.
Les,
Maybe you should ask the Prime Minister of Turkey about Islam.
He says there is no moderate Islam or extreme Islam, there is only Islam.
I’m sure he is more af an expert than either you or I and he seems to think that it is monolithic.
Cynical,
Pacifism doesn’t have any practical attraction to me if it is going to result in my death.
Areson,
Current events clearly show that Islam today is anti-human. I would hazard to say far more anti-human than Christianity is today. So far that the comparison is non-sensical.
You really need to read up on what life is like for women, non-muslims and other minorities in Islamic countries.
I don’t know why we would want to bomb Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. Hell, WMDs are the only sure fire way of keep the superpowers (all one of them) the fuck out of your country. Any government worth spit has a moral obligation to have nukes. Nukes are the reason why there will never be an Operation North Korean Freedom.
Secondly, Israel’s days are numbered. They can’t exist on their own and their patron countries (only one of which really matters) will eventually be faced with a situation where supporting that little strip of strategically worthless Mediterranean beachfront will just not be worth risking nuclear war. The West grabbed a chunk of prime real estate from the Arabs and gave it to their enemy to pay off a political debt and the Arabs are not going to leave it alone. Eventually they will have it back if they have to destroy the planet to get it.
Bombing Iran only postpones the inevitable (assuming it doesn’t accelerate the shit out of it). The best thing that could happen to advance world peace would be if the Israelis packed up their shit and moved back to where they came from. But world peace doesn’t rank very high on Israel’s agenda, so that festering sore could eventually irrupt into WWIII.
And just to head off the most likely reaction to my opinion, not being pro-Israel does not make someone a Nazi Jew-hating skin head. I would welcome every Israeli Jew who wanted to relocate to the U.S. and I think the U.S. would be the better for it. Lord knows the world would be safer because of it.
I like how the right-wing nutters always ignore the massive protests and movements for democracy sweeping Iran. Seriously, can they possibly be so stupid or murder-happy as to not see that attacking Iran right now would be -completely- counter-productive?
I understand such things coming from the fundie Christians who actually believe we are in a holy war, but there has to be some sanity still in the right. I wonder if scott here would care to comment on the changes in Iran and how bombing them would not hurt those burgeoning movements.
@13 GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!!
Daniel Pipes is a pussy! No real man proposes a “limited” strike with conventional weapons. Go nuclear or go home! My plan was much more aggressive.
#49 I am not sure an offensive limited to destroying Iran’s nuclear capability would hinder whatever democracy movements that exist in Iran.
#43 If Iran were to nuke Tel Aviv would you bet serious money that any president would respond with nukes? This is not Harry Truman in 1945 and I would not be prepared to bet money that Obama or even Bush or McCain (had he won) be willing to be the first president in the 21st century to use nukes even in retaliation. In my opinion, our responding with nukes is far from a foregone conclusion. And if we don’t, then what? If I were president I would be thinking Tel Avivs gone, if I authorize nukes I may get impeached, maybe even have to face some kind of war crimes charges. There are a lot of unknowns for a president contemplating retaliating with nukes. The only way I would see the odds favoring a US nuke retaliation is a major nuke strike on our own soil where the President could be assured of public support.
scott, come on. I’m saying, “Not all Muslims believe the same thing. Not all Muslims interpret the Koran in the same way.”
And you respond by telling me that a politician in Turkey said something vague — and, ultimately, meaningless — about Islam and he should know; so that shows that Muslims, unlike Christians and Jews and Hindus and every other religious group, believe in the same thing.
Really? You don’t even bother quoting a fundamentalist theologian, you quote a politician? Good gravy.
See, when you say things like
Current events clearly show that Islam today is anti-human.
(as meaningless as that statement is), you don’t see individuals, you see only a group. Are the millions of Muslims in the U.S. “anti-human?” Every one of them? Most of them? Are U.S. Muslims the same as Turkish Muslims? Are they the same as Kurdish Muslims? What percentage of Muslims are Shiite? Sunni? Suffi? (Yes, those are actually different denominations of Islam.)
You have to understand that your thinking on this really is the textbook definition of bigotry.
Elroy, if Iran attacks Israel with nukes, don’t you think Israel would just nuke it right back? Didn’t this dynamic have something to do with the lack of nuclear war post WW2?
#54 Assuming they are able to, then yes they would. Isreal does not have the overwhelming number of nukes that the US does. The US always had way more nukes than would be actually needed to nuke the USSR because it was assumed a large number might be taken out in the first strike.
Look at the calculus from Irans point of view. They use a few nukes and remove Isreals government effectively destroying the country so it can be taken over. Isreal retaliates and nukes a few Iranian cities (maybe depending on remaining capability). Iran is hurt but Isreal is destroyed soon to be taken over by its neighbors. Depending on how crazy Achmadini- whatever is, this may look winable.
So Isreal has fallen, they took out Tehran on the way out but they are gone. You are the US president. Do you turn the desert into glass? I don’t know, could go either way but I would not put money on either side of that bet.
#46 | scott in phx az — “Pacifism doesn’t have any practical attraction to me if it is going to result in my death.”
Perfectly understandable Scott. Just admit that committing acts of violence does nothing to eliminate violence from the world, it only invites more acts of violence.
I write that because I think that you believe that if the “Iranian threat” or “Muslim threat” were eliminated by violence, then violence itself would disappear from the world. Please tell me you are not that naive.
Nonetheless, this is the only logical reason for you to have this belief. In other words, if you believed that violence would live on after the eradication of this threat, why care about the threat at all if nothing will change?
The only way to change something is to not do the thing one desires to change. You can’t cure an alcoholic with more alcohol. You can’t ween a smoker off cigarettes with more cigarettes. You can’t get yourself out of debt by taking on more debt. You can’t eliminate violence with violence. You can’t extricate yourself from a hole by digging deeper.
#50 | steve — “@13 GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!!”
I promise to +1 you if you explain this to me.
The lawyer word you are looking for is “spoliation”, which in civil suits often leads to “death penalty sanctions”.
http://www.texasbar.com/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=8698
Generally, death penalty sanctions are to strike the defendant’s pleadings (all their legal filings) and enter a default judgment (an automatic “you lose and they get everything they are asking for that is within the law.)
Wars are supremely easier to start than finish. For better or worse I am a reactionary and am opposed to the Bush (strike first) doctrine. Drop a bomb on me and I will definitely react… however, just suggest that I will blow you up … well I won’t send the bombers but I will support raising taxes to keep a very close eye on you … you know…. providing for a common defense and all that.
I am not satisfied by mere threats… and alas, that is probably too old school… but there it is and there I am.
@ Dave Krueger – No Dave, just…no. The reason we haven’t gone after the Norks is quite fucking simple. Unless we started off with the nuclear option, they would kill somewhere between 500,000 – 5 million South Korean citizens with the artillery they have lined up on their side of the DMZ before we could silence it with conventional counter strikes. That doesn’t include the fact that the brainwashing their entire citizenry goes through makes how Hamas and Hezbollah indoctrinate their children look like paragons of restraint. Combine that with the fact that they have by far the largest army in the world in terms of bodies and you are looking at one serious fucking problem. Nukes are merely icing on a cake composed of cyanide, arsenic, and VX.
Elroy, you’re assuming that Iran has an interest in destroying Israel via a nuclear holocaust. You’re assuming Iran despises Israel more than Pakistan. You’re assuming Ahmadinejad has the power to order a nuclear strike. And you’re assuming that Ahmadinejad knows that the U.S. won’t use conventional weapons to invade and instigate regime change in Iran (which we most probably would).
The idea of Iran nuking Israel is as realistic as the idea of the U.S.S.R. nuking New York in 1978. Actually, it’s probably less realistic.
Israel can defend herself. American taxpayers and troops owe her nothing. Iran is not a threat to the US. If Mr. Pipes wants to fight Iran he should grab a gun and do it himself!
#60 ravenshrike,
Chemical & biological weapons are known as the poor man’s nukes. Back in 2003, Iraq was claiming to not have WMDs and was swearing that it was not interested in attacking anyone (which was almost certainly true). NK, on the other hand, was bragging about their WMDs and threatening every west-friendly nation in Asia not to mention their obvious aspirations to attain weapons capable of hitting the U.S.
So who did we attack? The the country that represented a real threat and actually had the capacity to inflict casualty rates comparable to nukes? No, we attacked the much weaker country because it makes for better press.
Of course, we have no business attacking either one.
No way the American people will fall for a shiny object of distraction like bombing Iran. No way this will keep them from holding government accountable for a failing economy and rising debt. No way. No way.
Yeah, right.
I’m reminded of a book by a Christian missionary and the amazing challenges he faced in New Guinea. He had studied the people for decades and had an impressive skill set for dealing with them…and it was still almost impossible for him to fulfill his mission (which was to first help, not to convert). So, why be surprised that less informed Joe Boogereaters eager to shoot really suck at foreign policy?
I’d like to hear from a pro-violence supporter on why they don’t believe this.
Given all the fun we’re having with the two wars we’re now fighting, three wold have to be even better, right? And like a lot of people, I don’t think the U.S. is doing as much as it could be to unit the Muslim world against us.
@52
No, there is no way that bombing Iran would pull people away from the anti-government/pro-democracy movements in a fervour of patriotism nor would that dictatorial, oppressive regime -ever- use our bombing them as a pretext for massive crackdowns and other draconian measures to crush what they currently have no valid reason to….
I have no idea how the Iranians can stand us, seriously. We already overthrew their democracy once and now that their rising up and demanding it back from the reactionaries in power there are idiots clamouring to bomb their movement back to the rise of the ayatollahs….but remember kids, do not -ever- question their commitment to a free, democratic world!
@46
“Pacifism doesn’t have any practical attraction to me if it is going to result in my death.”
Well, shucks, anything might result in your death. You can be a good patriot, support war against Islam, and end up getting drafted and used as bomb fodder. That’s got nothing to do with whether pacifism (or patriotism, or whatever) is correct. Life kills us all, in the end.
There is no ‘winning’ wrt to the Middle East. If we bomb Iran, the world goes up in smoke. If Iran bombs Israel or vice a versa, the world still goes up in smoke. (The US, EU, China, Russia, Syria, Turkey …and most of the rest of the world, have in-force treaties, including mutual defense treaties, with both Iran and/or Israel or with their allies.
If we don’t bomb Iran, the world goes up in smoke. There’s so many bad things going on in Southwest Asia that isn’t related to Iran or Israel that things could blow up anyway. (Yemen, just for one example.)
At this point, it isn’t a matter of outcomes. It’s just a matter of details and timing.
@#35 Arsen
Exactly.
We should allow Iran to collapse on it’s own.
So Les, I’m a bigot?
I have strong opinions, yes, guilty as charged. So do you, Radley, and the posters on this board. Are we all bigots?
Or are you saying I’m intolerant of others opinions? How so? Like you, or the other posters on this board?. Or more so? How? Are we all bigots, even you?
You did look up the word before you accused me of be of being a “textbook example” didn’t you.
Or perhaps, you were really calling me a racist? Do you want to clarify your opinion Les?
Are you engaging in the “last refuge of scoundrels” by playing the racist care?
If so, how does criticizing a violent political philosophy masquerading as the “religion of peace” constitute racism? Remember, Islam is not a race, nor are Muslims.
Pointing out that their “religion” commands them to conquer the world and kill, convert or subjugate all non-muslims, and that all the main threads of Islam preach exactly those things is not racist. Its the truth.
Even calling Mohammed an epileptic pedophile who invented a death cult to justify his own lust for child rape, theft, violence and murder is not racisist. It too is the truth.
ps Les. I never called Muslims anti-human. But Islam is.
If you are going to fight with me don’t make up things that I’m not saying.
@scott
big·ot·ry (bĭg’ə-trē)
n. The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
empahsis mine
Textbook example provided. Also, you have not provided any sources for these bigoted statements:
So, are you gonna be a hypocrite on top on being a bigot or will you provide us the evidence? I really hope you won’t, because that will mean I have to look up bible citations ‘proving’ that Christianity commands christians to conquer the world and kill, convert or subjugate all non-christians.
It would also be in it’s place if you answered Les’ rather relevant critique:
You can do that and yell ‘ad hominem, ad hominem’ at the same time you know? But I guess you didn’t because you can’t? And then you chose to play the victim instead to try and gain some percieved moral high-ground? Tell me if I am way of the mark here.
scott, I’m not trying to call you names or demean you. I’m attacking your arguments. Better men than your or I have made worse arguments than the really bad arguments you’re making. I make bad arguments regularly, myself. Please don’t take it personally. I suspect if you and I were sitting in the same room talking about this, we would agree more than we’d disagree, and we’d find a way to disagree in a civil fashion.
Bigotry doesn’t mean “having strong opinions.” Bigotry doesn’t mean “being intolerant of others’ opinions.” It’s about judging individuals without knowing them, based on preconceived notions about the group those individuals belong to.
I don’t know if you’re a racist. Until I know more about you, I’m going to assume you’re not a racist. But your attitude toward Islam, and therefore Muslims, is, technically, bigoted. I have bigoted feelings towards prosecutors and police officers, which I struggle with.
To suggest that you’re only saying that it is Islam which is evil and not the people who have made Islam a major part of their lives is, literally, nonsense, and it reflects a backpedaling on your part. A Muslim is someone whose faith is that of Islam. That’s a simple fact.
The Bible is very clear that adulterers, homosexuals, and people who work on the sabbath should be put to death. The Bible condones slavery and mass-murder (even, explicitly, of children). But if someone says that the Judeo-Christian philosophy is that of mass-murder and slavery, then that person is willfully ignorant of the complexities of the Jewish and Christian faiths and the individuals who practice them. If someone picks out the parts of the Koran that are as barbaric as parts of Bible and decides that those parts define Islam, then that person is willfully ignorant of Islam and the individuals who practice it.
You have repeatedly made statements about what Islam is. You’ve quoted a politician to justify your statements that Islam means one thing, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
But if you’re actually saying (#71) that Muslims aren’t anti-human, then it only follows that Islam doesn’t have to be anti-human (despite the barbaric parts of the Koran). By recognizing that a faith is defined by the people who practice it, instead of the centuries-old scripture which started it, you are nullifying any points you’ve been making about what Islam “is.”
Islam, like every other faith, is defined by the way that individuals practice it. The vast majority of Muslims practice Islam peacefully. Therefore, and contrary to your assertions (and the Turkish politician you mysteriously referenced), Islam cannot be one thing.
The reason it’s important, however, to understand that Islam is not and has never been one set of beliefs, is that cowardly, sick motherfuckers like Daniel Pipes (I’m happy to call that cowardly piece of shit as many names as I can think of and I’d have to struggle not to break his nose if I met him) use this baseless belief to dehumanize the innocent men, women, and children who would be burned alive and blown to pieces should his fondest wishes come to fruition.
I’m a devout secularist, but it is an objective fact that some of the kindest, smartest, gentlest people in the world are thoroughly devoted to Islam or Christ or Jehovah or Vishnu, et al. No faith is a single thing. Every individual redefines it.
And I, quite apparently, have been drinking. Good night, and, I hope, no hard feelings.
Les: More drinking plse.
Rune,
I would have thought that someone with your keen perceptive abilities would have noticed that I addressed both parts of the definition of a bigot in my response to Les – strong opinions, and intolerance. I consulted a hard copy of the Thorndike-Barnhardt 1951 comprehensive dictionary (since I have a fondness for old things).
Now, despite Les’s nice comment made under the influence of alcohol, I still ask how am I being intolerant? I disagree with Less that my statements are bigoted. Therefore I reject your, and Les’s characterization of me as a bigot. But at least Les has admitted that under his definition he is a bigot. So I guess that would make us all bigots in our own way, even you since you seem to be intolerant of my opinions. So be it. I’ll be a proud bigot towards the idea that women should be subjugated as slaves and all the other nasty things found in Islam.
Now as to my statements about what Islam is, you do your own wet work, I’m not going to make up for your laziness. The evidence is easy to obtain, and I disagree with Les’s characterization of Islam as being determined by its followers. Under that rational we would also have to be tolerant of Nazi Facism too, which I doubt Les would really advocate.
The Koran is a very specific document, and it says that Muslims are to spread Islam across the world by violence if necessary and that all non-Mulsims are to be converted, subjugated and taxed, or killed. Its pretty straightforward, and modern day Muslim jihadists routinely use the Koran to justify their violence. I can make that statment about a political concept known as Isllam, without claiming anything about any individual Muslims or Muslims.
Now I would like to see your thesis that Christianity is somehow just as bad as Islam. That ought to be a hoot. Please tell me how Christian terrorists justify their acts of terror. Oh, there aren’t any? Too bad, that kind of takes the punch out of your punchline doesn’t it.
To address your complaint that I made an obscure referecne to a statement by the Prime Minister of Turkey. I pointed that out in response to Les claim that Islam is this rich diverse population of different branches of Islam. I find that laughable, and so does the Turkish Prime Minister. But I guess under Les’s definition then there may be 1.2 billion versions of Islam since it all depends upon the nature of each individual follower. But I’m only worried about the ones that find justification in the Koran to fly jet airliners into buildings or put bombs in their underwere. It doesn’t take long before you are talking some real serious problems.
But just to make you and Les happy, I’ll make this bigoted statement.
The next underwear-bomber won’t be Amish, a Buddist, a Druid, or even a Southern Baptist. It’s virtually certain it will be someone calling himself a Muslim, and he’ll have found justification in the Koran – in Islam.
You and Les can deny that reality. The army did too and 13 soldiers couldn’t avoid the effects of the army denying reality.
It will happen again. Think about that.
@ Scott
No Christian terrorists? Well I guess Catholics are not Christians then as the IRA is clearly a terrorist organisation. Well what about protestants? I’m fairly sure they just found a terrorist guilty of murder for shooting that doctor out in Kansas. What about those terrorists in America bombing doctors offices and other such places? Are they not terrorists? What exactly is your definition of terrorist? If it is someone using violence to achieve a political end (hint, that is actually what it is) then those three examples are clearly of Christian terrorists.
If your going to say something as stupid as “there are no Christian terrorists” then at least do a basic wiki search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
And that list does not even include the conflict in Yugoslavia where a small scale genocide was carried out along religious lines (Christians killing others).
Sure, Islam is terrible for promoting terrorism. No sane person is going to argue that with you, but the truth is Christianity is only “better” in the sense that western secularism has managed to chain down it’s violent nature. I can assure you looking back over history Christianity is just as violent, misogynistic, xenophobic and backwards as any sect of Islam. The extent to which you no longer hear about it is the extent to which it has been shackled and, thankfully, subjugated to contemporary western ethics.
#76 David,
I guess we all know that “Christian terrorists” and “Muslim terrorists” are sort of oxymorons. It has been reported that neither side believes in taking innocent lives. Yet, they do.
Remember the guys that killed abortionists? Although it might be justified (not by me) in some Christian venues, it is still not consistent with Christian teaching and loving your brother. Is it not strange that there are, so many, Christians and Muslims, who would murder innocents, against what is believed in their own scriptures? Then, how can we blame the religions for the problem? People choose which teachings they want to follow! People can also do some very insane things!
Hypocrites? Bigots? ALL OF US!
I wonder if we are the only country that allows freedom to practice the religion of one’s choice (including atheism and satanism)and no restrictions on the free practice thereof! Was that not one of the reasons the persecuted Christians left Europe for the colonies? I don’t think that right exists in the Muslim countries, right now. I think our country is better because of this. At least we have a choice! So far!
Please, Please, Please quote the section of the Constitution that gives the federal government investigative/punitive powers.
I know you can’t EXCEPT in the cases of 1) counterfeiting current coin and securities, 2) piracies and felonies on the high Seas and offenses against the Law of Nations, and 3) treason. Since these had to be explicitly granted, the evidence and the proof is that the feds have NO LEGITIMATE authority to act in the areas of investigation/punishment of crimes outside these explicit delegations of power. The police power was left to the States. So the separation of powers was that the feds might pass a law and the states would enforce the law IF the states felt the law to be constitutional.
Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time does not make it right. Slavery was perfectly acceptable for 10s of thousands of years.
There is no good intentions clause in the Constitution so please do not claim the laws are necessary because the law is “good”.
Spend some time reading Article I, Section 8. Study the language, ask why and use root cause methods to fully evaluate the why. This means ask why, the ask why the first why, then ask why the second why, and continue for five iterations each time addressing the why to the previous answer.
Any time one reads one clause of the Constitution with such an interpretation that another clause is rendered unnecessary, the reading is WRONG.
Please, Please, Please quote the section of the Constitution that gives the federal government investigative/punitive powers.
The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Arpaio is being investigated for violating the civil rights of Hispanics with his mass, indiscriminate immigration raids.
BamBam,
There aren’t any “Christian terrorists” attempting to convert the world to Christianity by violence which would be analogous to the Islamic violence which has been going on since 700AD and has the specific goal of converting, subjuating, or killing all non-Muslims.
How obtuse can people be.
sorry BamBam, my response was to David in Balt. weird.
@Scott
@Scott
Are you really attempting to argue that Christians have never used violence to convert people to their religion? Really? Outside of the fact that the link I provided you explicitly states modern Christian groups have been reported using violence to force conversion the history of Christianity is -just- as violent and repressive as Islam. You claimed that there were no Christian terrorists and then when provided with several clear cases to the contrary you simply wave you hand and act as if they do not exist? How obtuse can you be is the real question.
And just so its clear, using violence like that murderer in Kansas to attempt to frighten people into conforming to his backwards world view is just as much an act of terrorism as any the Muslims have been carrying out. He may have only murdered one person but terrorism is still terrorism, Christian or Muslim. Despite what you may like to think, just because they “did it for Jesus” does not mean it wasn’t a cowardly act of terrorism.
A
Hi folks
Longtime lurker here, jumping in for Scott in AZ 100% with him. I’m still anti-war and I think Pipes here is mistaken.
In Les and David’s defense it IS technically true that a religion is whatever its adherents believe it to be. If every Christian interpreted the Bible as preaching environmentalism, then thats what christianity ‘is’ (essentialism etc etc).
And its really elementary good faith for folks (me included long ago) that theres no way that what the terrorists believe is mainstream or widespread. But here is the relevant fact which you can study on your own from any good college library research – EVERY LEGAL SCHOOL OF ISLAM (Sunni and Shia included) PREACHES OFFENSIVE WARFARE AGAINST NONMUSLIMS.
And I do mean EVERY. There is no exception. The ones that do not preach offensive Jihad are marginalized sects like Vohris in India and Eastern Pakistan, and Ahmadiyas who only believe in ‘spreading the word’ like Jesuits do. And for this tolerance Ahmadiyas and Vohris are massively discriminated against in the Muslim world and accused of being non-muslims.
I grew up in Saudi Arabia, and the hatred for non muslims there was unmistaken in the things little kids said when playing outside – 10 yr old kids would spit out religious insults calling us kaafirs, dogs and what not.
Anyway thts just an anecdote.
Also David
The issue is not what Christians at one point did. The issue is what Muslims are upto today. And that by itself is not enough of an issue. What makes the issue so massively screwed up is precisely that ‘moderate’ Muslims are nowhere in the picture to theologically defeat the Jihadis.
Yes most Muslims probably do not believe in the mainstream interpretation of their religion. But to defeat a purity-based interpretation within a faith, the defenders have to master their own theology and show that the radicals are mistaken theologically. And this is not even close to BEGINNING. There are hardly any renaissance-mongers in the Muslim world THEOLOGICALLY (this word is key here).
And David, you would do well to read the charters of Jihadi organisations around the world – anywhere from Philippines to Britain. They all share the same universalist jihadi language and anti-semitism is rampant in places where Jews have never lived. Ask yourself, why are Muslim jihadists beheading Buddhist monks in Thailand? Did Thailand invade Iraq?
@Contemplationist
And any of what you have said means what exactly in reference to Scott’s silly claims that 1) there are no Christian terrorists and 2) said terrorists are not forcing people to convert/attempting to impose their worldview under threats of violence? Nothing, that’s what. You can rail on about the evils of Islam all day, and I will generally agree with you on all of it, but pointing out how bad one religion is does not change the fact that another is just as bad. Christianity has much of the same violent, missionary (as in the core tenant of converting all to your religion) aspect as Islam. The main difference is that Christianity has, luckily, largely been subjugated to enlightened western ethics.
I am not sure exactly what it is you think my views on Islam are (as you state something “in my defense”) but I am fairly sure you have them wrong. As far as the original point of all of this, there are Christian t
David
Whatever your view on ‘original’ Christianity, you agree that, in your words it has been “largely subjugated to enlightened western ethics.” Although I would put it differently, I agree! And that IS the issue with Islam – it is nowhere close to being subjugated, it is relentless in its bloodlust, its being defended by clueless useless idiots in the West and other places, and moderate Muslims feel no heat to defeat the Jihad.
Again, Contemplationist, I am not sure what any of this has to do with any of my previous posts. I agree with you that Islam is a danger (I make no secrets in my view that all religion is such), and I agree that it presents a “more present” danger then Christianity currently does. That being said I never suggested that Islam did not pose such a threat nor have I argued that Christianity currently presents more of a threat then Islam. I simply corrected Scotts -very- wrong notion that there are, currently, no Christian terrorists.
As far as Islam and its blood-lust, again I largely agree with you, but I think that is a trait that is inherent to all the Abrahamic religions. Two have largely (but clearly not completely, as the constantly attempt to impose themselves on others) been broken while one in particular has not.