On previous comments made by me

[CJ Miller]

It has come to my attention that certain comments I have made were not received well by the greater Shirithian community. I wish to formally apologize for such comments and state that they are not truthful; they were made in an attempt to show that I could fit in with another semi-external community. I do not believe that all "brown" or "black" people are terrorists. I just believe that the war in Afghanistan is necessary to find and try Osama bin Ladin for the crimes against humanity committed on Tuesday, September 11, 2001; and my Republican upbringing has me believe that President Obama's campaign was all hat and no cattle, as shown by the sharp drop in his approval ratings mere months after he was inaugurated.

[Malliki Tosha]

Just the fact that you put all in italics makes me dislike you even more.

[Harvey Steffke]

It's not about that stupid terrorist crap you posted in the chat. You've just got a lousy attitude in general. I'm still pretty pissed about how you responded to Gman in the flag debate.

[Kaiser Mors VI]

I forgot about that...

[Jadie Kelb]

okay, why do I get the feeling that I am happy I missed all of that and have no idea what you guys are talking about?

[Kaiser Mors VI]

Most the issue happened off the forum, so many never saw it directly. Though he did make some rude comments to Greg about the flag change.. something about "out with the old Shireroth in with the New Shireroth..."

[Jonas]

Most the issue happened off the forum, so many never saw it directly. Though he did make some rude comments to Greg about the flag change.. something about "out with the old Shireroth in with the New Shireroth..."

Is that considered as rude?

[phineas elastopon]

Not really, especially when directed to Greg:

The old guard is going away. A new dawn is rising. May the next generation build and learn from us. This world is yours.

That was him, in July '06.

[Malliki Tosha]

I don't think it was especially rude either, but the comments in #micronations more than make up for that.

[Kaiser Mors VI]

I call something a bit stupider coming out of his ...errr.. keyboard.

[Malliki Tosha]

CJ, why don't you explain to everyone here why Barack Obama is a terrorist?

[CJ Miller]

Because he wants the US military to run away from the War on Terror, which would cause Islamic terrorists centered therein to think either (1) we're scared or (2) we want them to come to us, either of which could potentially provoke them to carpetbomb and/or nuke America.

[Chrimigules]

Actually, the Islamic terrorists perform strikes against us in response to the American military presence in the Middle East.

At the moment, in this "War on Terror", when our forces enter and occupy an area, the people side with the terrorists, because the terrorists will defend them against the Americans, whom they perceive to be imperialist conquerors. When our forces leave that same area, the terrorists are seen to no longer have a purpose, and the people force them to leave. So actually, leaving is probably the better tactic, because it causes the terrorists to lose public support.

[Kaiser Mors VI]

He's kinda got a point. Whenever a military force comes in people always look to another force to help them. Problem is, that 2nd group may themselves not wish to leave. Joy of Power vacuums. Further, and here a fun one to chew on CJ, who do you think originally trained those Terrorists? We did. The CIA went into Afganistan when the USSR invade back in the day and armed and trained Osama and his homies. We wanted them to keep the commies out. We were that second group, then when the USSR was pushed out, we were seen as the opposition. Then there is our support of Isreal. Our wars for Oil...etc.

Things are far more complicated then FOXNews and our various parties make it seem. I'm not saying we can just pull out, or not get involved in things, but everything has a consequence. This little "War on Terror" has been the greatest recruitment tool EVER given to those Terrorist groups. We give them an aggressive "Other" to combat. One of the greatest ways to gain power of people is to create an "Other" that they can focus their attention on. For America Terrorists, and Extremist Islam IS that other that much be defeated. For them America IS that other to be defeated.

Might I recommend some books. '1984' by George Orwell. Classic book about the other. And since I know that little Republican part of your brain will tell you I'm trying to trick you, or make you hate America. Remember that that book is AGAINST big government, which is in theory a core ideal of the Republican Party. It's also frighteningly good portrayal of various fun Social Psych and Sociological phenomenon. Hell, the first chapter should be enough to show you all about "Creating the Other".

But read that if you haven't. If you have, think about that book from two points of view. One. Those are American shouting at the screen, and that is Bin Ladin they are cursing. Now, change it. Those are a bunch of Insurgents, and that is Bush or Obama on the screen.

Right... Bones Season 5 Episode 14 "The Devil in the Details" http://www.megavideo.com/?v=BJCQV4WY (just close any popups or weirdness, I couldn't find a better source). Go to the 31 minute and 30 econds mark. Listen to the rest of that scene and the story he gives, then you might understand a bit better. (For background, the guy talking is Muslim and earlier in the show said he sees the "Great Shaitan(Saitan)" everyday, and everyone thought he meant the US, which some call by that name. )

We aren't angry that you may or may not support the war. Some of us might, some might not. We aren't angry if you support the "War on Terror". Some of us are upset because you want to lump an entire group of persons, based on race, skin color and other potentially vague factors, into a category of people that should be hated, feared or worse.

Further, you want to lump anyone who does not support your view as an "enemy". Know this. I do not support the war. Am I a terrorist. I find the behavior on both sides of the conflict appalling and dismaying. 3,000 Innocent people died on september 11th. I agree, justice must be served. Those responsible should and must be found. But should we go storming into countries, some unrelated to those event and also kill innocent people? Most people killed in the conflict likely just want to be left alone and live their lives. Then we march in and start shooting things, blowing things up. Then the other side shoots back, and the innocent people are caught in the middle. They killed 3000 innocent Americans.. we have killed 30,000(proly more) innocent Iraqi's, Afghani...etc. That is what people who want us out of the war want. An end to the mindless killing. Does that make one a terrorist?

Right.. getting preachy, I gtfo.

[Aurangzeb Khan]

I would dispute that the killing is mindless. You should try reading up on the Eastern Front - now that was mindless killing. In comparison both sides in the War on Terror are models of restraint, the Jihadis through lack of ability, the Americans through lack of imagination.

[Kaiser Mors VI]

That is both sad and disturbingly funny.

[Maksym Hadjimehmetov]

Actually, the Islamic terrorists perform strikes against us in response to the American military presence in the Middle East.

Hmm. I don't quite buy the 'they wouldn't be killing us if we weren't so nasty to them' argument. Of course American and Israeli military presence in some parts of the Middle East is a big factor, but airbrushing out the fact that these people have ideological convictions and are not just 'forced' into becoming Jihadis 100% of the time is essentially blaming the victims.
It's a subtle mix of the two, I'd say. There's an interesting political scholar called Manfred Gerstenfeld who coined the phrase 'humanitarian racism', essentially that groups percieved as non-Western who have difficult economic conditions should not be judged by the same ethical standards as those percieved as 'Western'.
Of course many Jihadis have the views they do in response to the US's presence in Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, but that doesn't change the fact that they chose a distinct ideological viewpoint- animalising them in such a fashion as to imply that their actions are understandable and even morally justifiable is to fundamentally ignore the choices Jihadis made with their free will and is in my opinion a gross disservice to those who have been victims of their attacks.

We should look this issue in the eye and admit that not all Jihadists were innocent little children who were forced into their position by the big bad Westerners. It's an ideology, not a reflex reaction, and choosing to follow it is exactly that- a choice.

[Chrimigules]

What I mean is that not as many would be listening to them if we weren't making it really easy for them to paint the West as the big bads. It's a lot easier to portray us as evil when we have military forces littered all over the region in multiple countries. Sure, they would still exist if we simply left the Middle East alone, but not as many people would be giving them as much credence, and generally see their presence as a negative when we aren't there to play the villain for them to portray themselves as the hero.

[Malliki Tosha]

I don't agree with the use of the word Jihad, but that is semantics.

The people that participated in the 9/11 attacks were not poor or illiterate. True, some of them came from a very poor area of Saudi Arabia, but most of them lived in the West and were educated people. The left often explain terrorist attacks with them being the revenge of the poor and oppressed Muslims against their perceived enemy. My response to that is that it wasn't poor people that committed the attacks. Osama bin Laden is certainly not a poor man and neither is (probably) al Qaeda. Do Muslims and Arabs feel some sort of fraternal bond so strong that they kill themselves because other Muslims or Arabs are poor and oppressed? Could be, but I find it unlikely. Let's just call it what it is, the actions of a small group of fringe sects consisting of complete nutcases motivated by a twisted world view. After all, there are many places in the world where people are poor and oppressed, but you don't see them flying airplanes into the WTC.

[Maksym Hadjimehmetov]

Well put, Malliki. Though the word Jihad is just a noun meaning 'struggle', it can be employed fairly in either an extremist or moderate Islamic context.

What I mean is that not as many would be listening to them if we weren't making it really easy for them to paint the West as the big bads. It's a lot easier to portray us as evil when we have military forces littered all over the region in multiple countries. Sure, they would still exist if we simply left the Middle East alone, but not as many people would be giving them as much credence, and generally see their presence as a negative when we aren't there to play the villain for them to portray themselves as the hero.
What I mean is that not as many would be listening to them if we weren't making it really easy for them to paint the West as the big bads. It's a lot easier to portray us as evil when we have military forces littered all over the region in multiple countries. Sure, they would still exist if we simply left the Middle East alone, but not as many people would be giving them as much credence, and generally see their presence as a negative when we aren't there to play the villain for them to portray themselves as the hero.

I have genuinely met some apologists for terrorism in the West, generally on the far left (i.e George Galloway) who seem to actually believe radical Islamism is totally a reaction against the West and that if we weren't there, Jihadists would all be like Mahatma Gandhi. Sorry for insulting your intelligence and assuming you were one of them.
Though some of the really radical ones would probably say that the West remains in the Middle East as long as Israel exists and its 6 million people are still alive.

[Falkner van der Sluijs]

Terrorism is a tactic. You can't fight a war against a tactic.

[Malliki Tosha]

So you mean that the War against the Square Formation a while back was doomed from the beginning?

[Kaiser Mors VI]

Very likely.

[Aurangzeb Khan]

Terrorism is a tactic. You can't fight a war against a tactic.

Yeah, but the 'War on Al-Qaeda, Fellow-Travellers, Associates & Wannabes' just isn't as snappy.

[Malliki Tosha]

You forgot "and Various Innocent Bystanders".

[Aurangzeb Khan]

But they get caught up in every war and are irrelevant in this context. Although Al-Qaeda's War might be termed 'The War against Jews, Crusaders, Apostates and Bystanders' since they are, unlike in the Coalition's War, intentional targets.

[Malliki Tosha]

I hardly consider innocent lives to be irrelevant.

[Aurangzeb Khan]

Yes but you are moralising on the subject, I'm not.

[Malliki Tosha]

Moralising? So thinking that innocent people are killed on both sides is bad is moralising? Yeah...

[Kaiser Mors VI]

It kinda is. Innocent bystanders are not inherently a target in the "War on Everyone who hates the US", and thus not part of a conversation discussing military tactics. Now in a conversation about the war in general they become a very relevant topic.... or something. I'm just kinda guess that's what he meant. But with the war being as it is, whether moralizing or not, civilians become a topic because they are used as shields...