|
|
 |
steve |
+ |
Thursday, June 17, 2004 at 9:39 PM I was just thinking -- For a while back in 2000/2001 it seems like Adam and Drew were on Politically Correct practically every other night. Does anybody have any of those shows saved? I think it'd be cool to see those nowadays. —steve |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Thursday, June 17, 2004 at 11:33 PM I wish people would collect all of their appearances on other shows here. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
salemthepocketfox |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 1:36 AM Just out of interest, why was that show cancelled? I know it had something to do with comments/content made on/after 9/11 but was exactly was said? Google isn't a great help as usual on this one... —salemthepocketfox |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 2:14 AM
Edited Friday, June 18, 2004 at 2:43 AM Maher resigned as host of PI in 2002 after making a controversial on-air remark, in which he said in response to Dinesh D'Souza's assertion that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards: "Exactly...We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly. We have the Bill of Rights. What we need is a Bill of Responsibilities." After the statement, companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, quickly causing the show to cost more than it returned. The show was subsequently cancelled on June 16, 2002. On June 22, six days after the cancellation of Politically Incorrect, Maher received the President's Award (for "championing free speech") from the Los Angeles Press Club. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 8:41 AM Yeah, I really thought it was too bad he got pulled over those comments. I thought he had a valid point...but I guess even a pseudo-compliment of terrorists is enough to get you fired. —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 9:34 AM I don't really see that as a compliment, at least not in its intent. It seems more like he was just stating a fact. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 9:45 AM I don't think he necessarily meant it as a compliment either, but apparently that's how it was perceived by some people at the time. "What, calling us more cowardly than the terrorists? How DARE he???" —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 12:47 PM The problem is we live in such a polarized time it's hard to have actual debate. Everything that's said gets perceived as being ideology as one way or the other, and just the high amount of tension causes people to lash out with statements more than usual. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
sick fuck |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 3:21 PM
Edited Friday, June 18, 2004 at 3:24 PM It's an object lesson in thinking before you speak, and making sure you've said exactly what you mean to say. What happened to Maher is unfair, because it's obvious he doesn't approve of Al Qaida and wasn't excusing them. But in times of crisis, when people are extremely angry and hurt, it's best to err on the side of caution. Or at least to be absolutely sure you've made your meaning crystal clear. By the way, it's strange how Dinesh D'Souza wasn't criticized (assuming that Adam's Crows' account is correct). —sick fuck |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 5:26 PM
Edited Friday, June 18, 2004 at 5:29 PM Dinesh D'Souza's comments were indirect and referred to the undeniably brazen tactics the terrorist used coordinating multiple hyjackings and piloting the planes into buildings. Maher went on to make a scornful acusation that the US was cowardly in the way it utilizes missles from the relative safety thousands of miles away from their target. His extra emphasis and the proximity to the aftermath of 9/11 is what put him in the spotlight. Note: I cut and pasted the quote in my earlier post from one of many news sources after Googling the topic. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 6:04 PM Never mind the fact he might be right, of course. —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
Jeremy |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 6:19 PM How is he right? Are you saying we should be sending our troops on suicide missions, so we don't look like cowards ourselves? Come on. —Jeremy |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 6:42 PM What precisely was Bill Maher right about? The way he put it, it almost sounded as if he was sneering at the United States and partially praising al-Qaeda. In fact, the tactics used by the terrorists are cowardly: they avoid direct confrontation with our military and deliberately target innocent civilians, always while disguising themselves as civilians; they also use civilians as shields. I would call such tactics cowardly and despicable. I'm also not sure why our military shouldn't use modern weapons such as precision-guided cruise missiles, if they can be precisely aimed so as to minimize or avoid civilian casualties. Would Maher have our military not use modern weapons? That would put us at an extreme disadvantage in places like Afghanistan: By the time we dispatched commando troops on scene, after the inevitable time-lag in intell assessment and communication, the highly mobile terrorist unit camped out in its mountain redoubt would already have disappeared. It would be like playing Whack-A-Mole with a foam-rubber paddle. Maher's remarks were just your typical Limousine Liberal knee-jerk condescension toward our men and women in the armed forces. I know this because I served in the Air Force for six years and have tremendous respect for my brothers- and sister-in-arms. It may come as news to Bill, but we're not all a bunch of hillbilly morons. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 9:16 PM I'm not saying we're cowards, and neither was he, but I agree with his specific example. In that, the act of flying a plane into a building is less cowardly than launching a missile from thousands of miles away (or insert some other arbitrary distance). Regardless of who they're targeting. I'm just talking about the physical act itself. Don't mistake "less cowardly" for "better" or "right." Just because that one act may have been less cowardly than some other act, don't turn this into a slippery slope. He didn't say everything we do is cowardly, or that everything terrorists do is NOT cowardly. Again, don't make the leap from what he said to thinking that he PREFERRED what the terrorists do to what we do. He did NOT make a judgment on what was better or what he wanted the U.S. army to do or not do. —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 10:30 PM
Edited Friday, June 18, 2004 at 10:36 PM Nonsense. Calling someone or something "cowardly" is a moral judgment. So what exactly was Bill's larger point, then? Why bother to make such a petty, hair-splitting distinction (if indeed he was) in such a vehement, animated fashion on a national broadcast on a major network, particularly in a time of national mourning? It's like telling a grieving widow that her late husband was a pussy and his killer was one helluva tough motherfucker. But hey, we're not condemning her murdered husband in any way; we're just saying he died crying like a bitch. Right? Bill Maher thought he was being clever and daringly intellectual, but in reality he was only being crass and asinine and stupid. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 10:53 PM Well, I don't think I ever actually saw the clip, just saw a quote of what was said, so I don't know the tone he used. If he said it in a mean tone, that would definitely change what I think about it. As for his larger point, who says there has to be one? I don't think the point of the show was to make sweeping points, it was by and large a comedy show, much like "Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn" - they're not there to make groundbreaking points, they're just there to comment on the news, and make jokes. Anyway, calling one thing a person/group does somewhat cowardly doesn't necessarily make an overall judgment against that person/group. It just makes a judgment on that one action. Your analogy about the murdered husband doesn't totally hold up because Maher said NOTHING about the victims of the attacks, whereas in your analogy the husband was called a pussy. Nothing like that was in Maher's statement - I'm not sure who "died crying like a bitch" in Maher's comments. And so what if someone says the person who killed the husband was a tough motherfucker? That could very well be true, but he's still a terrible person!! A person can have one or two positive aspects and still be a really, really bad person...even a terrorist. I don't think it's worth arguing this, really. Of course it wasn't the most sensitive thing to say given the time, but it wasn't like totally out of line, over-the-top terrible. I don't think he was trying to be "intellectual" but he was probably trying to be clever. I thought it was clever and remember at the time thinking the same thing. Again, not the most tactful thing to say I suppose, but that's why we have things like the first amendment. —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 11:12 PM
Edited Friday, June 18, 2004 at 11:41 PM I suppose now you're going to tell me Bill Maher was the victim of government censorship and was cruelly denied his constitutional rights. You missed the point of my (admittedly not very precise) analogy. It's the timing and the context of his words that were stupid and ill-chosen. Just as you wouldn't make approbatory remarks about her husband's killer to the grieving widow at the funeral, so it was astoundingly stupid of Maher to make his crack so soon after the tragedy, and on his national TV talk show. The ashes had hardly cooled at Ground Zero when he decided to drop his little bomb, and it was tossed off in a smug, smirking way intended to shock all those "rubes" out there in the heartland. Then he feigned surprise that people were actually shocked! Imagine that! Well, there's no First Amendment right to keep the networks from pulling the plug on your talk show. And if ABC thought Maher was becoming a liability and might cost them advertising dollars...well, that's how capitalism and the free market works. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, June 18, 2004 at 11:49 PM
Edited Friday, June 18, 2004 at 11:55 PM Saffeau's analogy was acurate. Puck71, you are making a move to weasel into ambiguity. How can you be proven wrong from the safety of a shifty position? You step out long enough to make a flawed point then retreat in the shadows dodging sound reasoning. You could even say, "Hey, this is just entertainment with a bunch of people chit-chatting. Nothing anyone says actually means anything." —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 12:23 AM Being a suicidal psychopath is not the same thing as being courageous. —Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 12:40 AM
Edited Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 1:09 AM Interesting point. Consider whether they thought of themselves as soldiers of their cause and the integration and content of their religious beliefs. Were these independent and irrational acts of insanity? Al Qaeda believes it is fighting a war. Are soldiers from any government suicidal and/or psychopathic for following orders? Is it the tactics used on either side that are really the issue? Targeting civilians and using them as shields has to do with rules of engagement. Not every society in the world agrees with the ideology. There are street fighters here in the US that would bite, sucker punch, shoot you in the back, kick you in the balls before you were ready in order to insure their victory. This isn't fair fighting but in a life and death battle people do what they have to or they lose and/or die. Off topic but concerning rules of engagement and war tactics: Whenever I see Civil War images showing the way each side would line up in rows and charge into a barrage of gunfire I wonder. When americans fought the british years earlier they had the advantage using guerilla tactics. We were able to pick them off like a shooting gallery because we were staggered randomly in the woods in misc clothing while the british lined up in rows wearing bright red uniforms. Somehow we forgot this during the Civil War and both sides suffered mass casualties when they lined up and absorbed waves of gunfire in wide open battlefields. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 1:51 AM Adam's Crows: Whether they considered themselves soldiers is irrelevant, as is the content of their religious beliefs. A psychopath is characterized by habitual manipulation and deceit, grandiosity, a complete lack of empathy, and an inability to feel remorse or regret. For such a person, others exist only as tools or obstacles: they have no value in and of themselves as human beings. Psychopaths are generally quite lucid and capable of acting in concert to achieve their ends (witness Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at Columbine). Are soldiers from any government suicidal and/or psychopathic for following orders? Presumably, the goal of any sane military order is not to force one's men to commit suicide but to achieve some tangible tactical or strategic advantage. The foreseen but unintended result of a military order may be the near-total destruction of your unit or company, but such a destruction is not its purpose. If, however, the means and the goal include the complete destruction of your soldiers for no rational tactical or strategic advantage, then both the consenting soldiers and the entire command structure may be considered psychopathic. Al Qaeda is a perfect example of institutional psychopathy. (See Lee Harris's seminal article "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology" in Policy Review No. 114. It is available online.) —Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
dick suck |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 2:43 AM Fantasy Ideology? Sounds like Adam's old Fantasy Answer routine. That should be Al Qaida's theme song, Adam singing "Fantasy Aaaaaannnsweeeeeer!" Bin Laden: "Will crashing four hijacked planes full of American hostages into famous American buildings make the U.S. withdraw from the Middle East and let us take over the entire region, leaving us in control of most of the world's oil supply?" Adam: "Fantasy Aaaaaaannnsweeeeeer!" —dick suck |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 3:11 AM
Edited Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 4:02 AM "Presumably, the goal of any sane military order is not to force one's men to commit suicide but to achieve some tangible tactical or strategic advantage. The foreseen but unintended result of a military order may be the near-total destruction of your unit or company, but such a destruction is not its purpose. If, however, the means and the goal include the complete destruction of your soldiers for no rational tactical or strategic advantage, then both the consenting soldiers and the entire command structure may be considered psychopathic. Al Qaeda is a perfect example of institutional psychopathy." —Trees Lounge Of course if there is "no rational tactical or strategic advantage" but who are you kidding? Do you believe that the events of 9/11 were planned and carried out for the fun of it? You are overlooking the obvious. Many cultures, including our own, consider suicidal yet tactically advantageous missions to be heroic. (The US awards the purple heart for such actions or look up Japanese kamakazi pilots WWII) When religious doctrine sanctions such acts and offers rewards in heaven, (Al Qaeda), life and activity here takes on an entirely different meaning and purpose. In such cultures the perception of forcing soldiers is incorrect. It is considered honorable and a privilage to have the opportunity. (Palestinean suicide bombers are revered). What do you know about Al Qaeda and its objectives? Read that article after doing some research and thinking on your own. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 4:28 AM Adam's Crows: Please go back and read my description of the psychopathic personality. You may also check these criteria against those found in the DSM or the WHO manuals. (More modern terminology prefers the term Antisocial Personality Disorder, but the diagnosis is the same.) You will find that all of these criteria match very closely the pathologically anti-social personalities displayed by Mohamed Atta, Zaccaria Moussaoui, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and even the founder of the modern Islamist movement, Sayyid Qutb. They are all textbook cases. The atrocities of 9/11 were planned and carried out not quite "for the fun of it," but in order to aggrandize the perpetrators and achieve fame, both personal and institutional. 9/11 was a shocking spectacle, like a massive Columbine, designed primarily to attract attention and admiration and fear--precisely what the psychopath desires more than anything else in the world. And although psychopaths generally work alone or with a few other like-minded (or similiarly dysfunctional) individuals to accomplish this aggrandizement, sometimes a movement is created, or hijacked and pushed to ideological extremes, to serve their own ends. Psychopathic personalities are drawn precisely to such extremist movements, which give them an ideological framework and support structure for their compulsions. That such movements can take root in a society and enjoy wide popularity does not alter the fact that their fundamental appeal is to such personalities. You are overlooking the possibility that an entire culture or society can display dysfunctional, even psychopathic, symptoms. (This does not mean that all, or even most, members of such a society are psychopathic, only that psychopaths are attracted to, thrive in, and set the tone for it.) You are correct, however, to point out that I was careless in speaking of "forcing" soldiers to carry out suicide missions. I meant only that in a sane (i.e., non-psychopathic) structure the only way to get soldiers to kill themselves for no rational purpose is to force them, as Russian soldiers at the front in World War II were forced, at gunpoint, to perform pointless suicide missions. Atta and his comrades, however, were willing, nay ecstatic, to destroy themselves. But this fact only strenghtens my claim that the jihadists are suicidal, for their own aggrandizement and reward, and are therefore not exactly "courageous". —Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 4:52 AM
Edited Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 4:56 AM Making sense, I will spend some time reading more about this. Thanks. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 5:13 AM You are welcome. To conclude: I would argue that the counterexamples you adduced (Kamikazes, Palestinian suicide bombers) actually bolster my argument. The U.S. and other democratic militaries may award medals posthumously and take the fact of death in battle as evidence of extraordinary courage, but we do not honor such death as a good in and of itself, as a primary goal. (As General Patton is reputed to have said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.") What you have in the case of the Kamikazes and Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade is a Death Cult, such as was found in Nazi Germany. I would argue that the existence of such a cult is very strong evidence that that society is displaying definite psychopathic symptoms. But I'm sure others would dispute that. —Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
Pan Pan |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 5:38 AM My goodness, how did this thread get to be so SERIOUS and GRIM? Ugly political squabbling has spoiled many a fine soiree at Chez Pan Pan. Never again, if I can help it. Quick, put on the party music and let's dance our cares away! —Pan Pan |
|
|
|
|
puck71 |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 6:48 AM OK, this is my last post on this, because obviously I'm not going to change my mind, and nobody else here will either, and I hate continually arguing when it's obvious nobody will ever "win." I don't think he was a victim of government censorship, and of course ABC has the right to terminate his contract if he becomes a liability to them. And like I said several times, I agree that the timing and context was very bad. If that's your only beef with what was said, then I guess I agree with you. It was very bad timing, and not the greatest choice of words. At worst poor judgment, but that doesn't make what he said necessarily wrong and it doesn't make him un-American. "Being a suicidal psychopath is not the same thing as being courageous." - Of course not, but is it not possible for a suicidal psychopath to be courageous? That's all I'm saying. It doesn't make him any "better" of a suicidal psychopath. Maybe these guys weren't courageous. Maybe they were brainwashed and/or high on drugs and didn't realize they were flying a plane right into a building. Who knows? Maher and I are just saying that in general, the act of flying a plane into a building is not a cowardly act. The act itself. Not the people. That's my last post on this thread. I know you all disagree and that's fine. We'll have to agree to disagree. I hate the terrorists too. —puck71 |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 11:47 AM
Edited Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 11:47 AM Thanks, Puck. My only point of disagreement is your distinction between act and people. In this instance, it's a distinction without a difference. I'll let TL defend his (her?) thesis, but I think he's on to something in arguing how acts committed by suicidal psychopaths can't be classified as courageous. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Johnny |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 11:57 AM Come on guys, WE CAN NOT JUDGE. This is part of there culture, all cultures are beautiful. Who are we to judge? we can not judge... —Johnny |
|
|
|
|
prick stuck |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 12:30 PM Interesting. You've convinced me the terrorists were suicidal psychopaths. Now you should discuss in detail the concept of courage. You've only presented half your argument. —prick stuck |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 2:32 PM
Edited Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 2:42 PM Every philosopher and psychologist who has written on the subject agrees that courage is the power of withstanding great fear in order to voluntarily accomplish a goal. I maintain that a suicidal person, a person who wants to die and does not fear death, is by definition not courageous. If the hijackers had feared death, had not wanted to die, but persisted nonetheless in their misguided, evil enterprise, then, yes, they could be described as courageous. This was not the case, however. Every written record left by the hijackers and every recollected account of their words and actions shows that they emphatically and ecstatically desired their own deaths. They were not courageous, only suicidal. (Likewise, someone who is forced against his will--at gunpoint, for instance--to carry out dangerous or suicidal actions is not courageous.) On the other hand, whether cowardice is equivalent to "not having courage" is a question worth exploring. Cowardice might be defined as shirking a moral duty because one was overcome by fear. I don't see how this applies to the U.S. military in the examples given by Bill Maher. What is the moral duty here? To engage in hand-to-hand combat with the enemy? The only moral duty I can see for us, in Maher's example, is to avoid as much as possible maiming or killing innocent civilians. Leveling an entire neighborhood from a safe distance in order to get at a handful of terrorists can be considered a cowardly act (which, by the way, makes the perpetrator a cowardly person). But obliterating an isolated terrorist stronghold from a safe distance while carefully avoiding civilian casualties is not a cowardly act. It is good military strategy. —Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
everybody has warts |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 3:32 PM there's a difference between a person who knowingly sacrifies his life for what he thinks is the greater good vs. somebody who kills themself because of severe depression or no longer having the will to live —everybody has warts |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 3:51 PM No, EHW. Risking your life to save others is courageous. You are withstanding great fear to accomplish a goal (that of saving another's life). Of course, if you had no fear of death or injury to withstand, then you would not be courageous. Your act would still be admirable, and morally good, but it would not by definition be courageous. And if it was your goal to die, then, yes, that would be suicide. —Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 4:04 PM
Edited Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 4:08 PM there's a difference between a person who knowingly sacrifices his life.... You're right, there is. But that's irrelevant to what I was discussing. The issue is whether his self-destruction is a foreseen but unintended consequence of his actions, or whether his self-destruction is his goal. There are many types of suicides. One can take one's own life because one is depressed, or in pain, or, in the case of a 9/11 jihadist, because one wishes to aggrandize oneself in this world and be rewarded with sexual favors and adulation in some childish, perverted vision of an afterlife. —Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 7:02 PM Trees Lounge, I think you brushed off Everybody's counterexample. Let me expand on it. What about a mother who in the heat of a dangerous moment reflexively sacrifices herself to save her child, before she can even stop to think about it or feel fear? What about certain heroic soldiers who unthinkingly jump on the grenade to save their comrades? They don't sit there and struggle to overcome their fear--they just react immediately. In other words, does the self-sacrificing hero have to feel fear to be considered courageous? We don't hesitate to describe these people as courageous. Are we misusing the word? —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 11:16 PM
Edited Saturday, June 19, 2004 at 11:21 PM I think Trees Lounge is more academic about this topic but I will give an opinion. Regarding the mother who instinctually risks or loses her life to save her child, it goes to some deeper identity of self beyond the conscious/contemplative mind. There is an awareness of life that is tied to a survival instinct. That is given up on some level when the species is at risk. Being her child, that child represents her future in the form of an extention of herself. Ultimately we reproduce to perpetuate the species. That overrides her individual importance. (Not eloquent but this is the idea). —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 8:12 AM Speaking of Harris and Klebold, there's a really interesting article in Slate about why they committed their crimes.
—hick truck |
|
|
|
|
smoot hawley |
+ |
Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 10:30 AM Great forum. Much more interesting and intelligent than I expected. Trees Lounge -- You've made some astute observations and valid points but somehow gone off track along the way. Bill Maher never used the word "courage" in his notorious quip. He was discussing "cowardice". So, unless you define "cowardice" as merely the absence of courage (which you don't), all your interesting arguments about courage miss the mark. What you need to do is carefully define "cowardice" and "not-cowardice" and make sure your definitions are ones that most reasonable people would accept; then, to refute Maher, you need to demonstrate that the terrorists are in fact cowardly and the U.S. military is not. That shouldn't be too difficult. This thread already contains more than enough material for the job. Hop to it, son! —smoot hawley |
|
|
|
|
Khlestakov |
+ |
Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 3:49 PM Oh fucking great, a philosophy roundtable! "Targeting civilians and using them as shields has to do with rules of engagement. Not every society in the world agrees with the ideology." - Adam's Crows Are you joking? Really, are you just playing devil's advocate or are you seriously defending a relativist position? I'm sure if you asked the terrorist if he was a coward, he'd say No. And if you asked him if he was a murderer, he'd say No to that, too. But so what? A terrorist will always deny any wrongdoing and justify his crimes as necessary and good. Why are we supposed to judge him by HIS standards? If you were a juror in a murder trial and the accused was an Aryan Brotherhood gang member who said he was justified in strangling a little black girl to death because whites are fighting for their very survival in a race war and removing one more black person from the earth is a necessary and good thing to do, would you be obliged to see things through his evil eyes and judge him by his own sick standards? Seriously, would you? —Khlestakov |
|
|
|
|
everybody has warts |
+ |
Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 6:22 PM you CAN say a person wasn't a coward, and still charge them guilty of murder and hang the bastard. why is it that some people dont accept anything more to the terrorist dialouge than crude drawings of a camel with a rocket up its ass... —everybody has warts |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 7:02 PM I never understood this equation:
Planes into buildings = terrorists = Arabs
I can think of several different possibilities, can't anyone else? Maybe some can and are afraid to speak or maybe no-one can. Either way, no-one is saying anything intelligent.
I also don't understand the trust people place in the news on TV and the newspaper and magazines and the radio and the internet.
So without those two things, the trust and the illogic equation, why would anyone be talking about terrorism and courage?
I guess it fits with the retarded mindset on display here, but does anyone really believe that some people aren't afraid of dying? It takes courage to kill yourself because while what one does is what one ultimately wants for the moment, the duality of motivation is never more present than in a life-and-death situation. No-one on earth wants to die.
So it's not cool to hate Blacks or Jews or Asians at the moment, so Arabs and Persians and the rest are the new sub-Humans? Why else would "they" be given a different outlook to all the people judging them?
Fucking pathetic, the lot of you. Even given the location. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 7:32 PM MajandraFan, if you are going to accuse everyone here of having a "retarded mindset", it would help your case if you would write coherent, grammatical prose. And by the way, it was Arab terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Are you disputing that? Nobody here said all Arabs were terrorists. And nobody even mentioned Persians. What the hell are you talking about? Everybody Has Warts, I think Khlestakov was only trying to point out the irrelevance of saying "The terrorists aren't cowardly because the culture that spawned the terrorists doesn't consider them cowardly." We judge motives and actions by standards we consider reasonable and appropriate. And of course you can think a criminal isn't cowardly and still condemn him. I don't think anyone here has said otherwise. What people are disputing here is whether these particular criminals (the 9/11 terrorists) were in fact cowardly. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 7:47 PM hick truck, that was a very interesting article. Thanks for the link! —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
smoot hawley |
+ |
Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 8:25 PM Saffeau -- Buried in MajandraFan's sputtering rant there is an argument of sorts. It goes something like this: 1. Everyone feels fear when facing death. 2. To kill oneself entails feeling fear and overcoming it. 3. Feeling fear and overcoming it to accomplish a goal (such as killing oneself) proves that one has courage. 4. Therefore, a suicide bomber (who kills himself) has courage. It's a valid argument, but I don't think the first two premises are true. The rest of his post is gibberish. As I said before, the real topic under discussion is not "courage" but "cowardice": that is the term Bill Maher used in his statement. What happened to Trees Lounge? I'm waiting for his final draft. He's a bright fellow who shows genuine promise.
—smoot hawley |
|
|
|
|
prick stuck |
+ |
Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 9:15 PM Oh yeah, you're right, MajandraFan. The 9/11 terrorists weren't psychopathic at all (hey, they weren't even Arab...must have been those dastardly scheming Jews trying to frame some innocent Arabs). And all us retards here have been brainwashed by the Jew-controlled American media that spreads lies about the terrorists. They are just misunderstood and they have legitimate grievances. Hey, we were asking for it because we're retarded and insensitive to the terrorists' needs. And if we dare to criticize them or condemn them, then we're a bunch of retarded racists. You've certainly proved YOU'RE no retard. —prick stuck |
|
|
|
|
sprewell |
+ |
Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 9:42 PM
Edited Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 9:44 PM I think Maher's point was that even though it was a terrorist act the terrorists had the courage to kill themselves in the process, presumably because they felt it was the only way to inflict maximum damage. Instead of imitating McVeigh or the previous WTC bomber by trying to set a bomb off, they kamikazed. On the other hand, the US military often attempts to sit in a room someplace, punching buttons and launching missiles till the enemy surrenders (it should be superfluous to note that those missiles are not entirely accurate, though exact statistics are not forthcoming). Obviously, Maher and others believe that ground troops should be used more often but are held back, to limit causalties, more than they should be. There's a kernel of truth there but highlighting the courage of suicide bombers who killed in the name of a highly dubious cause (publicity for their hatred of the US?) seems pretty obtuse. It was a dumb comment to make- though not as dumb as his comments about how all Arabs are raised from birth to be terrorists- but one would hope it would be occasionally allowed to the host of 'Politically Incorrect.' Of course, that name proved to be just hype. btw, I read all of Tree's Lounge's posts and it strikes me as pseudo-intelligent mumbo-jumbo. It's almost like he's trying to construct a science or mathematical equations out of human behaviour, a messy and complex business. Also, to say categorically that the terrorists did not feel fear only broadcasts your prejudice. —sprewell |
|
|
|
|
prick stuck |
+ |
Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 10:16 PM
Edited Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 10:26 PM sprewell, you're probably right about what Bill Maher was trying to say. He did a shitty job of saying it, though. Nevertheless, it was stupid and gutless of ABC to fire him for it. It's an overstatement to say that all Arabs are raised from birth to be terrorists. That's just more of Maher's silly hyperbole. But the Arab media and the Arab school systems (especially in Saudi Arabia) are relentlessly and virulently anti-American and anti-Semitic and glorify martyrdom. Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and al-Aqsa indoctrinate young children and reward the families of those who commit suicide bombings. That's a real problem for us and eventually it will be for the rest of the world, too, if these tactics spread to other regions. It doesn't do us any good to take refuge in politically correct, soft-headed multiculturalism and say that these things are just harmless expressions of alternative lifestyles with no deadly consequences for us. Yeah, Trees Lounge may be a little too reductive in his thinking, but clarifying your concepts is an important first step in defining an issue and discussing it. He's kind of fumbling around trying to get a grip on an interesting issue, but that doesn't mean the enterprise isn't worth pursuing. Human behavior certainly is very messy, but why should that stop us from trying to figure it out? Do you think philosophy and psychology are worthless enterprises? —prick stuck |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 11:17 PM
Edited Sunday, June 20, 2004 at 11:29 PM to say categorically that the terrorists did not feel fear only broadcasts your prejudice. Prejudice against terrorists? God forbid! Well, I can't speak for Trees Lounge, but I'll give his words a charitable interpretation. Describing the 9/11 terrorists as suicidal psychopaths sounds like a very plausible diagnosis. They did intend to kill themselves and they do seem to fit the profile of a psychopath. Some of them left wills and other written statements claiming that they were happy to be immolating themselves for the cause and for the wonderful reward they were going to receive in heaven. If TL's diagnosis is correct and the written statements of the terrorists weren't just idle boasting, then it seems reasonable to assume that they didn't suffer a lot of fear. And if they didn't suffer a lot of fear, then they weren't courageous. I don't know if all TL's premises are true, but his argument doesn't sound so far-fetched to me. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Monday, June 21, 2004 at 2:02 AM Take 2.
All of the events of the aeroplanes crashing into sykscrapers that you all are discussing here: these things are speculation.
Apologies to any with elementary language skill, sorry you can't keep up.
All of it is speculation, understand? Beyond the planes actually crashing, it is all speculation. Do any of you understand this?
Terrorism? Assumption. Bin Laden? Assumption. Oil? Assumption.
I suppose I have to state some viable alternatives since none of you want to let go of what you already think. Ponder too that crimes becomer harder to solve the more serious they are all the way up to the point at which an unsolved crime will cause so much bother to the authorities governing that said authorites can profit from finding A culprit immediately.
The planes crash. Who was piloting? Why? Remember that only news says that it was Arabs/terrorists. The only deducement to make is that it was humans. There is no way to know what those humans looked like. Their skin shade and facial structures are a complete mystery. Their motivations are a mystery too. For those that think it could only be a military action (and therefore terrorism; discount guerilla warfare for some reason), consider the anomaly: there has never been any action attributed to terrorism that is comparable to 2001. A logical point here would suggest that if this was a terrorist action then it was conducted by a small independent group of operators. So small that they would all have perished. The idea that some mastermind must be left behind is completely illogical and based in emotion. The instance of this event is far more rare than the appearance of serial killers in society. So for this event to have been enacted by a long-standing terrorist group is as likely as the earth suspending its rotation for a day. For such an anomalously capable and intelligent (unless it is supposed that such a thing happens all the time, or that any idiot can but somehow doesn't achieve such an act) group of people (the terrorists) to be identified and exposed immediately after the fact is even more unlikely as a stand-alone event, let alone coupled with the previous supposition.
Everyone following so far? I don't think anyone is...
What are the chances that this act of 2001 was achieved by a group of people with reasons so bizarre that no-one here or anywhere can fathom them? After all, this is a rare event. Crazy people are common enough, and so are intelligent people. Crazy intelligent people are fairly rare. People crazy and intelligent enough to manage something like 2001 (the piloting skill alone was extraordinary) are almost non-existent. This event required at least two of them, even rarer. About as rare as the event of 2001, funnily enough. Now, who can suppose to understand the motivations of people THAT smart, and THAT crazy? Again, anyone who disputes the intelligence or sanity of the people who did that crazy aerial show must think that stupid sane people can pull off such a thing. Stupid sane people rob banks and get caught, that kind of thing. Stupid sane people are everywhere. Everyone here is stupid and sane. How many of you could get something like this done, especially in this placebo-hyper-security climate? None of you even grasp what a placebo is (trust the news) so the idea that it's harder actually makes it harder.
The culprits could have been religiously insane, or philosophically bent (committed nihilists, existentialist, etc), or void of any idea structures. They could have been born in the United States and lived there their whole lives, or they could have been born in Europe or anywhere else in the world. The idea that they were somehow connected with the Middle East is unfounded. Why is such an idea so universally embraced?
Speculation could go on for a long time about who did that event and why. In a narrow and limited fashion such speculation is going on right now, both in this thread and in the real world. People don't seem to think that they are speculating. Why can no-one accept that they simply do not know what happened? Does such reality make one feel so powerless that they cannot sleep? Is this why newspapers make money? More speculation.
I do not know how you people here and the people in the world that think like you can live your lives with such a dishonest and illogical outlook on the world.
I could Sherlock Holmes on who profits from events like September 11, but that is just more theory. Disregarding the accepted truth is one thing, weaving together elaborate alternative truths is for X-Files fans and Christians and Atheists and fucking Taoists!
Fuck off!
No-one confronted any of the 3 points I made last time, will any of you even understand what I am saying now?
To paraphrase Saffeau: prejudice against niggers? God forbid! While it is true that you live in America and you are Americans, so are a good billion other people. I don't see French people laying claim to being all of Europe, or Vietnamese trying to be Asia. Such a flawed tenet at the base of your collective mindset makes United States citizens a particularly ignorant group of people. I know that polysyllabic words can be a pain particularly when they are so oft-used, so maybe it's time that the USA came up with a more user-friendly name for itself. Although going by the names of so many places and locations in the USA, naming things is not a strong-suit of the "culture". But we can't judge.
As my brother once said, I've now been run over by my train of thought and it really doesn't matter if I get back to 1985 anyway. Also, Bill Maher is a fucking clown. I have seen his show, back in the day. It was never politically incorrect and it was rarely funny. Bill Maher was never funny while I was watching although he was often literally politically incorrect. He was incorrect about pretty much everything. How Northern American. Oh, I remember. Has anyone heard how that backwater nation known as France is moving to make Christianity classified as a cult? And all major religions there besides? Damn stupid frog-eating morons. Imagine officially recognising the non-existence of God. Imagine being more than cavemen living in big buildings. Crazy!
Often when France is mentioned, especially favourably to the USA, some Usan will state something about how America saved their damn butts back in WW2! And then gave them so much money, blah blah blah. Like Pitchshifter said, history is written by the victors. It would be a bit of a trip sitting in a Japanese history class. Then zap over to a German one, a Russian one, a British one, an Israeli one (ooh!), a Chinese one.
The last century has happened in so many different ways. By the way, who is for condemning soldiers? You've gotta be with that program!
Who's gonna start the nuclear holocaust? It won't be a civilian.
Do your species a favour, spit in a soldier's face today! —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Monday, June 21, 2004 at 3:20 AM
Edited Monday, June 21, 2004 at 3:27 AM MajandraFan, Your posts are so misinformed and lengthy that one cannot begin to waste time addressing them. You are either ignoring some obvious and well documented (verifiable) facts or you do not read enough let alone that you have strung dellusion with misinformation to form some fantasy conclusions. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Monday, June 21, 2004 at 7:53 AM MajandraFan has got to be a troll. There's no way someone who really believed all that nonsense would be a Loveline fan. I think we have another cammy on our hands. Well done, MF. You had me fooled for a minute. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Monday, June 21, 2004 at 11:28 AM
Edited Monday, June 21, 2004 at 11:29 AM 
—NJC |
|
|
|
|
prick stuck |
+ |
Monday, June 21, 2004 at 1:03 PM history is written by the victors Yeah, yeah. American Media (TM) is a monolithic entity dedicated solely to propagandizing on behalf of the Military-Industrial Complex and White Supremacy. At the risk of arguing with an obvious troll, I'd like to ask MajFan why it is that Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States is the single best-selling history of the U.S. for the last twenty years, used in more college history courses than any other book. Why are the biggest-grossing, most popular, most lavishly honored Hollywood Westerns of the least thirty years, like Dances with Wolves, pro-Indian and anti-White? Why have Hollywood's anti-Vietnam-War movies like Platoon, Apocalypse Now, and The Deer Hunter become the standard Big Media interpretation of that event? Why is Michael Moore such a success in this country? —prick stuck |
|
|
|
|
Khlestakov |
+ |
Monday, June 21, 2004 at 4:46 PM "Let's FART on this thread" That would be redundant. —Khlestakov |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Monday, June 21, 2004 at 6:36 PM You know what AdamCrow, just one. Just one point. No?
Saffeau, it's a lack of belief. Is that nonsense? I like Loveline very much.
And then prickstuck. Should I analyse the integrity of a statement falsely attributed to me? prickstuck cannot process information correctly.
A bit of mockery, Terrance & Phillip are not about farts. Cool.
Talk about beating against a brick wall.
Are there any smart Loveline fans? —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Monday, June 21, 2004 at 6:39 PM MF, maybe the problem is that you can't think or write coherently. Just a thought. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
sprewell |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 2:25 PM
Edited Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 2:29 PM Prick stuck-
> Human behavior certainly is very messy, but why should that stop us from trying to figure it
> out? Do you think philosophy and psychology are worthless enterprises?
Philosophy, no; psychology, yes. I used to question its validity but, at one point, was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. After reading Gore Vidal on the subject, I am now very sceptical about its use. I think philosophy can often devolve into mumbo jumbo also- depends on the user- though that has more to do with needlessly confusing or technical verbiage. Obviously there's a fundamental need to figure out human behaviour: it's the would-be theorists who would turn it into a pseudo-science that I decry. Saffeau-
> Prejudice against terrorists? God forbid!
Right... that's what I meant (bold text dripping sarcasm). It's that kind of idiotic statement that often renders debate useless. I was obviously referring to his implicit prejudice against Muslims and/or Arabs. > Describing the 9/11 terrorists as suicidal psychopaths sounds like a very plausible diagnosis.
> They did intend to kill themselves and they do seem to fit the profile of a psychopath. Some of
> them left wills and other written statements claiming that they were happy to be immolating
> themselves for the cause and for the wonderful reward they were going to receive in heaven. If
> TL's diagnosis is correct and the written statements of the terrorists weren't just idle boasting,
> then it seems reasonable to assume that they didn't suffer a lot of fear. And if they didn't suffer a
> lot of fear, then they weren't courageous. I don't know if all TL's premises are true, but his
> argument doesn't sound so far-fetched to me.
Let's mirror your statements and see how they look when applied to a zealot on the other side. Arizona Cardinals safety Pat Tillman was obviously a suicidal psychopath. Why else would he want to leave a career in the NFL earning millions of dollars to join a highly dangerous corps of the US military? He obviously meant to kill himself and he made statements before he left that he was very happy and proud to serve his country. Let's just assume that it wasn't idle boasting about serving his nation, since he did leave a lucrative career behind. That means he must not have felt a lot of fear! Bingo Bongo, instant psychopath. My point in all this is that they're all human beings that feel fear. The sad conclusion is that they were chumps, on both sides, for falling for the propaganda provided by their warlords and for sacrificing their lives for their leaders' politics. —sprewell |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 2:35 PM
Edited Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 2:40 PM No, sprewell. I think the point is that the terrorists intended to kill themselves. It was part of their goal. The fanatical political movement they belonged to promotes the self-destruction of its warrior class as a goal, as a good in itself. As far as I know, Pat Tillman wasn't trying to get himself killed. It just happened as he was performing his duty. This should not be a difficult distinction to grasp. And by the way, being suicidal does not ipso facto make you a psychopath, and being a psychopath does not make you ipso facto suicidal. I think TL's point was that the 9/11 terrorists and the Columbine killers were an unusual and dangerous combination of both. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
prick stuck |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 3:15 PM How strange that someone who thinks psychology is a crock would be a Loveline fan. —prick stuck |
|
|
|
|
sprewell |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 3:31 PM No, saffeau. No political movement promotes the destruction of their own warrior class as a goal. If facing a sufficiently overwhelming force (as Al-Qaida and the Japanese kamikazes were), there are cultures that support suicide bombings as a viable means of attack. Reading some kind of Jim Jones-like longing for mass suicide into it is your interpretation, which is laughable and easily countered. On the other hand, the 9/11 terrorists were clearly willing individually to die in pursuit of their cause, a desire I compared to Pat Tillman's own. Then I extended the comparison satirically and labeled him a suicidal psychopath, just as you did for the 9/11 perpetrators. Pretty easy stuff to grasp. As for your ipso facto assertions, that whole paragraph about Pat Tillman was a satirical goof on the staments made by you and Tree's Lounge. Nevertheless, I did leave myself an out when I wrote that he was a suicidal psychopath, implying that the term needed the qualifier. If I meant that they were equivalent, the coupling would have been redundant. As for you stuck prick, I only listen to Loveline because Carolla is hilarious. I think their advice is okay but only shows their prejudices when it comes to relationship issues ("Why're you whoring around? Your dad did something to you, didn't he?"). I have gotten pissed off when they belittle their callers for not being clear, when it's perfectly clear to me what they're trying to say and must not be for A&D only because they're not paying sufficient attention (Note: many callers are indeed unclear, but A&D have fumbled many times also). —sprewell |
|
|
|
|
prick stuck |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 5:25 PM sprewell: Can't disagree with you there about A&D automatically dismissing all callers. I find it annoying too. BTW & FYI: your dyslexia can be treated so that you don't invert people's names or commit other embarrassing social faux pas. —prick stuck |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 6:05 PM Nope. You snarkily suggested that Tillman was suicidal and psychopathic because he left a lucrative job and put his life at risk. Neither one of those actions necessarily makes him either suicidal or psychopathic. If he had left behind some evidence showing that he hoped to die in combat, then that would make him suicidal. If he had displayed the traits described by Trees Lounge or listed in the various diagnostic manuals, then he would be a psychopath. But I am not aware of any evidence that Tillman did any of these things. Are you? Re suicide bombings: They are designed for dramatic, not tactical, purposes. It's all wrapped up in a perverted martyrology and a cult of death. Read the speeches of bin Laden or the various proclamations issued by Islamist terror organizations. This does not mean, however, that all Arabs or Muslims approve of such things. It only means that a particular segment (and a very well-funded one at that) of the Muslim world has in the last few decades adopted a very sick ideology that must be combatted and discredited--a job that, unfortunately, the Bush administration is fucking up royally. But enough of this silly bickering. I'm curious, sprewell. You seem to be suggesting a moral equivalence between America and al-Qaeda. I hope I'm mistaken about this. So...What do you think should have been America's response to 9/11? —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
sprewell |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 7:06 PM Saffeau, no one hopes to die in combat. There are poor fools who are willing to either risk dying (Tillman) or willing to commit suicide (Atta and Co.) for their cause. I hope your use of the term "diagnostic manual" is satiric (not snarky), as that language goes to my earlier point about treating humans like machines. I am not going to argue whether Tillman left evidence or exhibited the traits you list because my whole point was that your and Trees Lounge's criteria and terminology are useless. I agree that these suicide bombings were designed for dramatic purposes. Also, they were probably detrimental to their cause. That is until they happened to precipitate the current reaction from Bush. However, suicide bombings can be used for tactical purposes also, for example, in guerilla warfare to sap the dominant army's will to fight. Yes, there are screwed up factions of the Muslim world, just as the neoconservatives and imperialists in the US imperium (read: coalition) need a dressing-down. Moral equivalence... who do you think supported Bin Laden in Afghanistan? Who was that shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in Iraq? Why did US funding to Saddam increase after he gassed the Kurds? (For the uninitiated, the answers are the US in the 80's, Rumsfeld, and who knows?) As for a valid response to 9/11, that's like asking me what to do about Israel. If you're really interested in an answer, ask me again, give me a couple of days, and I'll do my best. —sprewell |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 11:36 PM Oh. My. God. He is suggesting a moral equivalence. Yuck.
—Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
prick stuck |
+ |
Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 12:49 AM Don't be so coy, Spree. Spell out the implications of your wise little questions. Does the fact that the U.S. supported some loathsome, despicable "allies" twenty years ago mean that it should continue supporting them? Does it mean that the U.S. "deserved" 9/11? Does it mean the U.S. has no right to retaliate against such an attack? Inquiring minds want to know. —prick stuck |
|
|
|
|
Khlestakov |
+ |
Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 7:20 PM "How strange that someone who thinks psychology is a crock would be a Loveline fan." Yeah, Loveline makes strange bedfellows. That's part of Adam's genius. Far rightwing types like his cryptoracism, his ridicule of bleedinghearts, and his "humorous" demands that the "lowlife" poor be sterilized or killed. The far left and the rich liberal types like his (and Drew's) condescending attitude to all those unenlightened hicks who didn't go to a fancy college or make a lot of money and therefore need professional people to tell them how to live their lives. It takes a sort of genius to package that all up and bring all the worst political tendencies together in one big fan club. —Khlestakov |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|