I should point out that I did remove one of Saint Ying's earlier posts which was essentially a one line response to me calling me an idiot and a dimwit (originally response 15). Like I said, I make no pretense of being fair or dispassionate. But I don't have the freedom to leave. I can only, at best, try to convince people that it is in their best interests to get along with one another (and in particular me since, like I said, if I leave, there's literally no site) or at worst, remove the person from the site.

I would prefer that people like Saint Ying (or you Muggaz) take the route of trying to get along with me since I'm not going anywhere. But I have no problem at all just removing people I find to be jerks from the site.  Or at least, until a better option becomes available (such as an isolation feature that allows users to only post on their own blogs and not comment anywhere else).

All - thanks for the livley discussion while I have been away, (out seeing Estorgen Lass in MD). I would liek to say that oe of the reasons behind this blog is to draw out folks like St. Ying so that others may see their true colors. I think many in our world do not truly grasp that people like these exist. Sure they know bad folks like Al Quaeda and such are out there but they seem to be unaware that there are *apologists* for these folks. I know it caught me offguard when I first encounter the lot. The beauty of it all is that these folks do tremendously more harm to their cause than I ever could. All of my reasoned arguments come to naught in the face of their own willingly illustrated buffoonery and moral equivalencies. Thanks folks:)

Im a new entree here but definately not my first time to see clashes of different opinion. Its everywhere , different people , different background.... different opinions... and when all of it comes together to a single forum , some sort of disagreement would definately be there.And what we are discussing here is obviously not some small flippy issue.Its a everyday thing.... and very much an at -your -face issue. Its good that atleast people are coming out and voicing their different opinions... that shows a sign of maturity and accepting the fact that : yes we are ready to talk about it.... n most important , ready to deal with it.Now it would be like coming of age thing if only we could accept the fact that not everyone thinks & sees the situation as we do...... like someone said : it takes courage to Stand up and speak and it also takes courage to sit and listen. When we cross that bridge over : get over our diffrences ...well , atleast respect the other opinion , that would mean a great deal for all of us: and we must know that we are here... because in some way we all hold the same ground... we may be taking different routes but im sure the purpose/destination is same .Tolerance is never easy : its easier said than done.But it would be really wonderful if we could atleast accept its importance.

We may not agree with all the words....views.... but noone will disagree that we did gave a thought to that other person's opinion , and that in itself... opens a lot many doors and we tend to see both sides of the coin.Better still...it makes us more aware !

I would day : Pat on your back for atleast giving it a thought... and even bother to take time out to speak about how u feel about this whole thing.. not many people has the time or inclination to do the same.

Hopin' for the best : not sure if im gonna be around thou.

Cheers :meg

Draginol,

Once again, you fail to see the enormous gulf between understanding and justifying. I have made no moral judgement in favor of Al Quaida. My moral judgements are reserved to myself in this case. Writing paragraph after paragraph bashing Al Quaida is redundant and pointless. Nobody from Al Quaida reads your messages, and few people are undecided about the moral legitimacy of the organization. Furthermore, you cast labels that are summarily incorrect when you suggest that I am an advocate of the terrorists, or that I hate America. The only terrorist I am an advocate, and then only with modest reservations, of is the one that would kill you and exclusively you. The only thing I hate about America is the fact that you and your kind exist within it. The conservatives who emphatically and symbolically represent 'freedom' and American values (while I emphatically reject the dogmatic and non-pragmatic representation of freedom), do not represent my American values. Freedom is lived and experienced, it is not proselytized. In fact, it is antithetical to proselytization. Freedom is not threatened by terrorists unless reactionary right-wing governments decide to tighten the nooses of free society through Patriot Acts and other long term government empowering legislation.

I will repeat very simply and logically why we need to understand the phenomenon of terrorism. Again this has nothing to do with WWII, Pearl Harbor, or lynching black people. You cannot look back 60 years if you want to know how to fight terrorism. But I'll preface it by saying that the first step to understanding a violence committed against you is to know who is directly responsible and who is not responsible. Attacking someone who is not responsible because you think that invading their country will be convenient to you is not just, and will be viewed as unjust by terrorists (who are themselves unjust in their cause), unidentifiable potential terrorists (who may or may not be unjust), members of the world community, and a large block of Americans alike. In order that your first actions in response to an act of violence be justified, you must understand who committed that act. If you attack someone unjustly, the original crime committed against you is of no significance. Furthermore, it will demonstrate to the perpetrator that you don't mean business in pursuing justice. The second key to understanding a violence is knowing how it was committed. Knowing how Al Quaida operates, what targets it might choose, how it recruits, and how it infiltrates security are essential to taking direct measures both in preventing attacks and wiping out the cells to disorient and dismantle the organization (at least temporarily). The third step to understanding a violent act is knowing why it was committed. This extends far beyond understanding the rationale of the most extreme terrorists for committing their acts, which you have pointed out are in many cases completely irrational and irrevertably hardened against us, to understanding how terrorism emerged, how it relates to tribalism, how it is motivated by religious beliefs, how it relates to middle east history and western imperialism, how it thrives in non-democratic situations, and ultimately how large populations of mostly rational people can support, tolerate, or participate in acts of terrorism. Asking 'why' doesn't necessarily have to lead to ethical policies, such as the withdrawal of troops from the region and taking a more diplomatic stance in the Palestinian conflict (which you would consider appeasement)... The best propoganda is created by those with insight into the thinking of its target viewer. But the bottom line is that since we are supposedly taking a pro-active position in the middle east, we need to know how the people think, and we must now how to work with them. Not everyone in the Arab World has the radical views of Al Quaida, and if we can convince moderate majorities who dislike us for very real and rational reasons, we will be that much closer to enacting real change. It seems that you are willing to ask the 'why' question yourself, but you recoil whenever the lines of responsibility lead back to the United States's actions (while pouncing on its non-actions). Take off the blinders and see that we've made mistakes in the past that we need to address if we're going to proceed to do right by the Arab and Middle Eastern population.

Brad, Saint Ying is just passionate - I am sure he means no disrespect to you personally at all... to paraphrase you mate - thicken thy skin. He is merely presenting an opinion from the other side, and i think it maybe a bit to hot for you to handle... As the owner of the site, I guess I cant complain, but saint Ying has nothing on the amount of disrespect i have seen you display to me and others... We get over it. When you sincerely beleive that Saint Ying is happy that 9/11 happened, and that terrorist acts occur, then you can ban him from the site... because that is what you have said to him in a round about way - you are implying he loves terrorists... not only is that unfair, but it is disrespectful as well. BAM!!!

Well said, Muggaz, especially that last point. I frequently curse 9/11, and I regard it as the first in a long line of evils that have made this country a political nightmare for the sane and intelligent liberals of America. In my wildest fantasies I imagine driving a mile from my house on the night of September 10th to the Comfort Inn where Muhammad Attah spent his last night, and flying my car through the window of his motel room. However, remeniscing about 9/11 or contemplating how evil the terrorists are is not my style. These things have already been said and done a million times. When one says that Al Quaida is sick and evil, one is contributing nothing to the quality of discourse. The bottom line is that I can't control the violence of Al Quaida, but I can hope to influence the policies of my country, which is why you will always find me being more critical of America than Al Quaida. Hardline policies almost always do more harm then good. They can solve many problems, but they are quite likely to create new ones as well. If we are going to take responsibility for solving problems, we must also be aware of new ones that we help create. When we go on to solve those problems, we must understand that hardline policies that are unsympathetic to subtlety and detailed strategic concerns will create problems in the future that will also need to be addressed. When people like Draginol advocate hard line policies and point to neoconservatives who think they are fixing the middle east, I am exasperated by the ignorance at hand.

Regarding Draginol, I would be much more appreciative if he would come off his high-chair and provide an emotional, self-destructive response (self destructive responses aren't actually always self destructive - see, I'm here), rather than issuing those criminally stupid statements such as 'I'm glad to see the terrorists have such an advocate in Saint Ying'. There has been no greater travesty in this thread than that statement, except perhaps the thing he said about lynching a black man, an insult to those truly innocent of our negro brothers and sisters who were victims of hateful white treachery.

Probably the wrong place to ask, but when does your interview air Draginol, or have we already missed it?

Cheers

CBS comes out on June 8, not sure when the interview airs though. Will of course let you know.

Saint Ying: I can only judge you based on what you say. I find you arrogant without any justification for that arrogance as you seem to be incredibly ignorant on the subject matter. It is as if you see petty insults and arrogance as a substitute for knowledge.

There's little incentive for me to spell out my position more clearly than I already have because a) I don't think you have the knowledge background to appreciate it and Even if you did, you would not necessarily agree with it. The fact that you would lump all terrorism together speaks volumes.

Let me give you a tip: Terrorism is a tactic. It's not a philosophy. It's not a movement. It's a tactic. Bush's "war on terrorism" is misnamed either for political purposes (i.e. as to not offend any particular group) or because he wasn't sharp enough to figure out the terrorism is just a tactic. Terrorists are groups who practice this tactic and they have many different means and purposes.

My position is one possible position one could take knowing the breadth of facts on this particular issue.  The terrorists who are actively trying to kill Americans make no secret of who they are and why they do. And the more someone bothers to research their motives, the more one is inclined to conclude that they're just a pathetic hate group.

The fact you couldn't grasp the KKK analogy told me that you really don't understand what's going on.  From the KKK's point of view, the ghastly things they did were perfectly justified. Similarly, to Al Qaeda, the ghastly things they do are justified. The main difference is that people like you, who would never support the KKK, are willing to help rationalize the behavior of Al Qaeda because you hate America so much.  

The world that Al Qaeda would imagine would be one devoid of personal freedom. Extremist left-wingers like you complain about the most trivial losses of freedom or more accuratley, th emost trivial IMAGINED losses of freedom (your bitching and moaning on-line doesn't put you in danger here in the USA, but in a Taliban ruled USA you would be in danger). That's why people like you rarely have any influence, because you have no perspective. It's people like you that equate Bush to the Taliban because he's religious. Such comparisons demonstrate a far-reaching ignorance on what the Taliban was and how millions of people around the world have to live.  Americans enjoy a level of freedom that few in world history have enjoyed.  That freedom, however, has many negative side-effects and does require traits such as tolerance (for instance, I tolerate your point of view, and though you would obviously snuff me out if you could based on your obvious intolerance towards opinions not of your own).

In short, Al Qaeda is just a hate mongering group of violent thugs and it's not necessary to "understand" them any more than we need to "understand" why racist groups like the KKK lynched innocent African Americans. The goal of our government should be to a) Eliminate these groups as best it can and Change the environment which creates them (such as bringing freedom to the middle east in the form of a liberal democracy if possible).

That is my opinion on the matter anyway.

Brad, I agree with most of what you said in the above post, however, I, and others, feel that the loss of our trivial freedoms is a big deal, we also realize that the Taliban is not coming to rule the US, but destroy it. We also believe that the easiest way to destroy the US is to have us take away our own freedoms, the things that make the US the US.

Cheers

What loss of trivial freedoms have you experienced?

I didn't really expect anyone to actually answer frogboy on this and I am shocked to find myself disappointed at being right.

Well, the first thing that comes to mind with "loss of trivial freedom" is having to get my ID checked at the gate to get onto post. We didn't instate that until... well, about 2 or 3 hours after the planes hit, right? ... You say there was an oporder laying that in already? That the military machine had already made contingency plans to make all posts closed? They had already done a practice run here on post?
Well, that just proves that the gov't planned the whole thing, right?

An actual loss of trivial freedom might be the increased scrutiny at airports, seriously. Wait, who needed examples?

Wow, greywar. Interesting.

Good god, I'd forgotten completely about this post.  Way to recover it Texas.