Re: [Way off topic] the politics of ubuntu.org
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:46:33 -0800, Steve Lamb <grey@dmiyu.org> wrote:
> Sam Watkins wrote:
> > In what way does "ubuntu.org" have a terrorist agenda?
> > Or does pacifist equate to terrorist in your dictionary?
>
> When a pacifist defends those who behead innocents on video tape is there
> a difference?
>
> > "Terrorist" has become such a bull-shit word.
>
> No. Terrorist isn't used enough. In fact "Islamic Terrorist" isn't used
> enough. People who behead other people with a machete so those being beheaded
Calling people islamic terrorists is about the same as claiming that
Islam is responsible for their actions. It certainly implies it. You
can and should never hold an entire religion responsible for the acts
of a few of its fundamentalists. After all, Bush is a christian too,
but that doesn't mean all christians agree with him blowing up
children in the Middle East.
> know what's happening the entire time aren't "insurgents", they're terrorists.
> People who shoot unarmed, fleeing *children* are not "militants", they're
> terrorists.
You referring to the Israeli military or what?
>
> > The worst "terrorist" is America, with your depleted uranium
> > "dirty-bombs" which you throw around at every opportunity,
>
> Cite? Outside of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I don't recall a detonation of
> any atomic or nuclear device on any civilian population. In fact I don't even
> recall any *threat* of it aside from the Cold War with the USSR. One would do
> well to recall that it never went past a threat of it and America was not the
> only party there.
depleted uranium bombs are the socalled "bunker busters" we hear so
much about. On explosion extremely small particles get dispersed in
the air forming a real environmental and health hazard. Depleted
uranium will obviously not be able to be detonated, it just helps
getting in the bunker. Get a clue.
>
> > with your arms-companies selling land-mines to anyone who wants one,
>
> Never heard of that one. Even so chances are it is a decade or two old, no?
No.
>
> > with your "oil before people" capitalist mentality,
>
> Always love this one. People can never back it up. Besides given the
> alternatives to capitalism shown around the world I'll take capitalism any day
> of the week. You spew that work like it is dirty. Last I checked capitalism
> is the only system of commerce in which both parties enter into it freely and
> both can back out of it just as freely. Last time I checked as a way of life
> it, thus far, has resulted in the lowest number of deaths trying to enforce
> it's ideals exactly because it is cooperative and not zero-sum. Remind me
> again the death toll of Stalin and Pol Pot?
It's a fact that long before Bush gained power there were already
groups of people (that would later make it into his government as his
close advisors) clamoring for the invasion of Iraq. Their intended
goal was "securing American intrests in the Middle East". If that's
not about oil, I don't know what it's about. Certainly not about the
good of the people.
>[snip shock and awe]
> > with your consumerism and obesity in a world where people are starving,
>
> Yeah, and? It's called responsibility. We happen to have figured out
> the intricate workings of the condom. Rampant breeding and the expectation of
> everyone else to take care of the resulting population has far more to do with
> starvation than anything else. Look at the nations that aren't starving and
> you see a common trend; low births per couple. In some nations it is so low
> that the population will shrink. Less mouths to feed, more food per mouth.
> Simple math.
People in Africa could feed themselves if it weren't for the constant
wars. How much this is our fault is something to be debated, but your
basic premise is at least wrong. Might I also point out that Bush is
trying to convince people in foreign countries _not_ to use a condom,
and not vice versa. Ask anyone with a bit of a clue in the matter and
he'll tell you that the high births per couple is caused by low income
and opportunity, not vice versa (more people can bring in more food).
>
> > with your "our lifestyle is more important than your life" mentality.
>
> No. Our *life* is more important to us than your life is to us. Just as
> your life is more important to you than our life is. If it weren't then you
> wouldn't have the gimme, gimme, gimme attitude that everyone else should forgo
> their life just to pick up yours.
I resent this attitude from a moral point of view. It is a biological
imperative, nothing more.
>
> > Take a good look at your own country's agenda.
>
> I do, all the time. I compare it to the two-faced liars elsewhere and am
> glad that, while we are far from perfect, we're far better than the majority
> of the world. I mean let's face facts. America, deposed Saddam, handed over
> the nation to the provisional government early and has the balls to stick it
> out to ensure free elections. It did so with broad coalition of nations
> (Italy, Brittain just to name two of twenty plus) and under the mandate of the
> UN (13+ resolutions calling for military force in Iraq in the past two decades
> which is why no UN resolutions against this action has been made). What's the
> alternative? Well, let's look at the 4 major opponents of the Iraqi action.
>
>[snip throwing with mud]
There was no UN support specifically for military action. The reason
that there never was any UN resolutions aganist actions is that the US
would've vetoed those anyway and nobody wants to piss off the US.
Apparently you have no clue about the inner workings of the UN, it
would be best to just shut up about it and continue working on your
educational system.
Also, if I recall correctly the reason for invasion in Iraq was the
"presence" of mass destruction weapons. Where are those weapons now?
And you're calling other people's leaders two-faced liars?
>
> What was that again about America's "oil before people capitalist
> mentality"? Seems like the nations crowing the loudest about that are listed
> above.
>
> Hating America has become fashionable in the world, the facts be damned.
It is true that hating america has become fashionable, which is
deplorable. However I don't think you have any idea about what the
facts are, nor do 90% of americans.
Wim
Reply to: