Civil War or Just Sectarian Violence

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:20 pm

Caleb the Cruel wrote:I'm a follower of the stupid monkey that we like to call President Bush.

Pretty much, yeah!

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:09 pm

Caleb the Cruel wrote:
vtmarik wrote:there's a right-wing conspiracy

vtmarik wrote: We'd much rather complain and whine about right-wing conspiracy.

Very nice Caleb, you sure got me there don't you?

Taking a page from the O'Reilly Manual on How To Make Your Opponent Look Like an Idiot I see.

Joey-boy, I wasn't insulting you. I'm insulting your worldview that seems to be shared by other conservatives about how the liberal media (which consequently doesn't exist) is big and evil and Fox is trying to bring balance to the world.

And yes, if people in this country weren't lazy, fat, and stupid we would be fighting a war of sorts over politics. Unfortunately, we can't even motivate the general populace to get interested in voting, if the recent voter turnout percentages are any indication on the state of our country. So many people appear to be jaded over our current political process that it's almost sad. I'm 21 and I already know that things like petitions and protests are basically useless, as is voting your conscience.

And just for your further edification, I get my news from a neutral news aggregator (Fark.com) that pulls from all sources including your precious bastion of conservative values. I get my tech news from Slashdot and I get my game news from Evil Avatar. I don't rely on the AP, the UIP, BBC News, blah-blah-blah.

Econ2000 · Post by **Econ2000** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:38 pm

OnlyAmbrose wrote:
Civil + War = Civil War.

better way to put it: civilians at war =Civil War

Caleb the Cruel · Post by **Caleb the Cruel** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:03 pm

vtmarik wrote:Very nice Caleb, you sure got me there don't you?

Taking a page from the O'Reilly Manual on How To Make Your Opponent Look Like an Idiot I see.

Now I know your problem, you work for NBC, right?

Joe McCarthy · Post by **Joe McCarthy** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:29 pm

vtmarik wrote:
Caleb the Cruel wrote:
vtmarik wrote:there's a right-wing conspiracy

vtmarik wrote: We'd much rather complain and whine about right-wing conspiracy.
Very nice Caleb, you sure got me there don't you?

Taking a page from the O'Reilly Manual on How To Make Your Opponent Look Like an Idiot I see.

Joey-boy, I wasn't insulting you. I'm insulting your worldview that seems to be shared by other conservatives about how the liberal media (which consequently doesn't exist) is big and evil and Fox is trying to bring balance to the world.

And yes, if people in this country weren't lazy, fat, and stupid we would be fighting a war of sorts over politics. Unfortunately, we can't even motivate the general populace to get interested in voting, if the recent voter turnout percentages are any indication on the state of our country. So many people appear to be jaded over our current political process that it's almost sad. I'm 21 and I already know that things like petitions and protests are basically useless, as is voting your conscience.

And just for your further edification, I get my news from a neutral news aggregator (Fark.com) that pulls from all sources including your precious bastion of conservative values. I get my tech news from Slashdot and I get my game news from Evil Avatar. I don't rely on the AP, the UIP, BBC News, blah-blah-blah.

Ok first Im not interested in where you get your news, and the way you do isnt exceptional. I doubt Im wrong when I say that any of us interested in the news that have internet access are getting our news from multiple sources. If you are relying on fark to gather that news for you then you are accepting a smaller scope than most probably, as you are willing to accept that whatever Drew Curtis puts in front of you is the news and that isnt neutral. Ill bet if i were to comb the web for stories that I thought newsworthy and supplied that to you as your source for the news you would know better than to think thats anything close to neutral. They would be stories that interest me or impact my agenda in some way. I dont know or care what the fark guys' agenda is, but Im not accepting whatever he found on the web as all the news i need. But ok, I feel further edified, so thanks for your personal story.

Second of all, most all of the television media is liberal. Anybody not a liberal can see it, as can anybody with an open mind to evidence. You and I can argue all day about it because much of it is subjective, but any objective data about it, such as polls of journalist as to their personal political views supports overwhelmingly that they are most all liberals. Which is fine, Im not the one bitching about journalists' political views, thats you and your buddy talking about Fox. im reminding you that there are plenty of alternatives.

Third of all, i dont give a damn about liberals in media. It used to be a problem back in the day when Walter Cronkite and so forth dominated things, now those types are marginalized. I dont think they are evil, as you claim I do, I think they are wrong. People can get their news anywhere they want anyway. It doesnt matter that most news outlets are staffed by liberals, there are enough conservative ones when you add in the internet and radio and print media. I like it like this, there is a choice. And lately I hear a hell of lot of liberals bitching about the single conservative network, like cowshrptrn up there. Acting like they are getting screwed by the media because there is one damn station that doesnt tow the liberal line. Im going to repond to that by reminding them that they have the whole rest of TV news and most of the newspapers, and if you want to jump in with your nonsence be my guest, but if you feel the need to guess at what Im thinking do a better job than sticking me with some bullshit cookie-cutter worldview like Fox is great and the rest of the media is some liberal conspiracy. Im just pointing out there are plenty of alternatives and its ridiculous for a liberal to worry about whether they are fairly represented by the media. So stuff your opinion of what you think my worldview is up your ass.

PS , I apologize on behalf of the rest of the country for not being as hardworking or as skinny as you are. We'll get on Atkins straightaway and get the revolution going as soon as we lose 30 pounds or so. Arrogant prick.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:31 pm

Hahaha, you call me arrogant.

Anybody not a liberal can see it, as can anybody with an open mind to evidence.

You bobble-headed idiot. I'm a TotalFarker so I get every single link that's submitted to the page, not just the weird and wacky stuff. And if you've ever been on the page for a while you'll see that there's stuff there with a conservative slant and a liberal slant (just by looking at the headlines).

And yes, this country has one of the highest obesity rates in the world, forgive me if the typical American then becomes fat in my opinion. I'm not skinny, but I'm also not overweight.

Yes, assuming that conservativism dominated the airwaves because of Fox is ridiculous. However, it's also ridiculous to assume that the whole of media is dominated by Liberals; who got more flack during the 2000 and 2004 elections? I believe it was Kerry and Gore.

And Caleb, oddly enough I work for a Fox News affiliate.

ksslemp · Post by **ksslemp** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:35 pm

Just Sectarian Violence. If it was a civil war they would be fighting to take over the country. they're just trying to kill eachother!

We Won the War! now if we could just win the Occupation!

Caleb the Cruel · Post by **Caleb the Cruel** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:58 pm

ksslemp wrote:Just Sectarian Violence. If it was a civil war they would be fighting to take over the country. they're just trying to kill eachother!

We Won the War! now if we could just win the Occupation!

I like this view of things...

Caleb the Cruel · Post by **Caleb the Cruel** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:59 pm

vtmarik wrote:And Caleb, oddly enough I work for a Fox News affiliate.

If I were you, I wouldn't be surprised if a pink slip comes your way.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:06 am

O......K?

s.xkitten · Post by **s.xkitten** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:47 am

once again...a sensitive subject, people taking it to personally....and getting totally off topic, just like always...whats the point in even discussing it if its gonna end up a pissing match...i just don't understand why we always take everything so personally...i mean, i have strong opinions, but i don't call people names all the time... just to point that out

ksslemp · Post by **ksslemp** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:58 am

vtmarik wrote:And if the AP, UPI, CNN, CBS, NBC, and the other things mentioned here are sooooo Liberal, how do they get White House press credentials?

It's called a Free Press! This isn't the Venezuelan "White House"!

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:26 am

s.xkitten wrote:once again...a sensitive subject, people taking it to personally....and getting totally off topic, just like always...whats the point in even discussing it if its gonna end up a pissing match...i just don't understand why we always take everything so personally...i mean, i have strong opinions, but i don't call people names all the time... just to point that out

Well, I do it because I can't refuse a challenge over the 'net.

s.xkitten · Post by **s.xkitten** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:37 am

i see...makes no sense...at all

areon · Post by **areon** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:05 am

They aren't killing each other for no reason. The central government holds no authority to keep security, how that can not be seen as a prelude to a civil war at the very least is beyond me.

ksslemp · Post by **ksslemp** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:16 am

areon wrote:They aren't killing each other for no reason. The central government holds no authority to keep security, how that can not be seen as a prelude to a civil war at the very least is beyond me.

"Prelude" is the operative word here.
The question was whether it IS a civil war not IF it will become one.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:11 pm

ksslemp wrote:"Prelude" is the operative word here.
The question was whether it IS a civil war not IF it will become one.

Let's see:

Two factions within the same national body shooting at each other with the aim of making the other one dead in order to preserve a worldview or governmental system.

Sounds like a civil war to me.

"Sectarian violence" is just a nicer way to put it, like saying "Struggle against global extremism" instead of "war on terror" or "islamofascist" instead of "islamic fundamentalist." It's all an attempt to make the image look more clear-cut than it really is.

Twill · Post by **Twill** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:09 pm

ok, I'm going to split my loayalties here:

some academic thingy paper study that I didn't read all of or look at for inherent bias itself wrote: "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

From http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

On the issue of "ConquerClub civil war" Joe, vt, chill dudes....enough of the "other people" bashing you both have good arguments, try listening to eachother rather than insulting eachother...that's how people learn to get along

On the issue of civil vs sectarian shit hitting the fan, I think we all just need to pull our heads our of our rear ends, note that whatever it is is just generally messed up, was probably facilitated by the rapid shift in power, death, destruction and property and political disputes which often follow from war and note that war is bad...even if it is intended to free people from tyranny...

We also should note that pulling out right now would be the worst thing we could do. I hate war as much as...or probably more than...the next person, but pulling out would a) send the wrong message, b) put untrained and unprepared police and soldiers in front of well trained and/or really pissed off people who care more about what they are fighting for and end up allowing really bad people who like to kill those who dont agree with them to come back to power, which I think we can all agree would be a bad thing.

Now, perhaps more aid, fewer bullets and less of this whole "we are american soldiers who dont speak your language but will assume shouting will make it better, we are here to rape your women but you can't tell anyone because you dont speak our language, then we are going to do more of the shouting at you in a language you don't understand and generally be an outside force telling you what to do...still in a language you dont understand" would be a good thing....but that's just what I think

ksslemp · Post by **ksslemp** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:09 pm

vtmarik wrote:
ksslemp wrote:"Prelude" is the operative word here.
The question was whether it IS a civil war not IF it will become one.
Let's see:

Two factions within the same national body shooting at each other with the aim of making the other one dead in order to preserve a worldview or governmental system.

Sounds like a civil war to me.

"Sectarian violence" is just a nicer way to put it, like saying "Struggle against global extremism" instead of "war on terror" or "islamofascist" instead of "islamic fundamentalist." It's all an attempt to make the image look more clear-cut than it really is.

I agree with the "Struggle against global extremism" instead of "war on terror" or "islamofascist" instead of "islamic fundamentalist." notion, but this doesn't correspond to your "civil war/sectarian violence" argument. Sectarian Violence is not equal to Civil War, more like Sectarian Violence = Denominational War. A Civil War refers to a struggle for Control of a Gov't or region.

It is "Sectarian Violence", with no aim but revenge!
If the methodist and protestants were killing eachother in America, would you call it a Civil War? NO, you'd call it "Sectarian Violence"! and Madness!

ksslemp · Post by **ksslemp** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:15 pm

Twill wrote:
Now, perhaps more aid, fewer bullets and less of this whole "we are american soldiers who dont speak your language but will assume shouting will make it better, we are here to rape your women but you can't tell anyone because you dont speak our language, then we are going to do more of the shouting at you in a language you don't understand and generally be an outside force telling you what to do...still in a language you dont understand" would be a good thing....but that's just what I think

GO TO HELL!
You talk about getting along and throw in this crap!, Pull YOUR head out of your rear end!

Twill · Post by **Twill** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:38 pm

not trying to say that all soldiers are there to rape women, far from it. the vast majority of them have only the best intentions of others at heart.

but...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... id=2171860
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/09/soldi ... index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00545.html
http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6156656.stm
(yes, I do understand that these site hold biases, and in that aztlan case, rather extreme biases...I dont necessarily agree with any of them, but they represent the power of propoganda and I promise you someone is using this in a very anti-US way somewhere)

These HUGELY undermine any sort of credability that the US ever had. These are EXACTLY the things that will be grabbed and used by extremists, terrorists and general "bad guys" to recruit and incite violence against US occupational forces.

What you quoted was intended to show the worst of what US soliders have done...and indeed soldiers from many armies have done...with the expressed intent of suggesting that these acts need to stop, now and because they have happened have undeniably and forever harmed the US mission in Iraq to a point that may not be repairable.

That's all.

But, you are more than welcome to your opinion that I belong in hell when I pull my head out of my ass. Just like I think that you need to look critically at what I am saying and not just provide a knee-jerk reaction because you think I am insulting you, your friends, soldiers or the american mission in Iraq.

Have a good one.

Twill

Caleb the Cruel · Post by **Caleb the Cruel** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:57 pm

ksslemp wrote:If the methodist and protestants were killing eachother in America, would you call it a Civil War? NO, you'd call it "Sectarian Violence"! and Madness!

That's not a good example considering that Methodiats are Protestant!

ksslemp · Post by **ksslemp** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:05 pm

Okay, Catholics and Protestants killing each other!

They're both "Sects" of Christianity.

Caleb the Cruel · Post by **Caleb the Cruel** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:05 pm

If Coalition forces were to pull out of Iraq, particularly in a very short period of time, then Iraq would tumble into an all-out civil war. But, if we slowly withdraw our forces from Iraq, and train and arm the Iraqi government, then we may succeed. A time table that would be set in stone would not work, that would just give the terrorists a date that we will be gone, then they will know how long they have to stockpile weapons to overthrow the government.

s.xkitten · Post by **s.xkitten** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:08 pm

or we could send every single person who is in the military, every other person who wants to serve, close off all the borders, and just move in until everyone who is fighting against the government is dead...no prisoners, nothing...if you have a gun pointed at us, we shoot you...end of story...that would work too...