Saddam execution video draws criticism

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I can’t get enough of that video!

Every time I start feeling a little down, I just watch it again and chuckle!

Beware taking pleasure from others pain.  Even if they were the devil on earth.

He is off this earth and that is the important thing.

I don’t take pleasure in others’ pain.  I take pleasure from Saddam’s DEATH.

I disagree Philo dough.

Most civilized people are happy that Sadaam Hussein has been tried, found guilty, and executed.

You are taking pleasure in watching a video of his suffering.  It is like a type of pornography. 

Check yourself, cause I find that weird.  And actually gruesome.  You will come to no good from it.

So I took profits in a position on Friday and the client said "Today?" and I said, "It's a 4 day weekend, and if the execute Saddam over the weekend you never know what might come out of it!"

The stock was down slightly today but the client was like "You're right! You never know!"

As to the fact of the issue, firstly that the official version was so sanitized, and it turns out they left out this particular part. Gee imagine that, the second they cut the camera, the room went kazinsky! And they wonder why we don't trust them with the truth!

Second, IMHO Maybeeee is right, it's porn. Watch if you want, I have no objection (legally or morally). But, whereas porn is watching something that is universally pleasurable, enjoying watching a fellow human being (any fellow human being) being killed seems anatural.

Thirdly, I'm no fan of Saddam, but we managed to stuff defeat down the throat of victory, choking it with this episode. I know, I know, we weren't in charge of the execution, our puppet regime was. We're the occupiers. Even if you want to blame the Jews, Pontius Pilate’s name still lives in infamy for his washed handling of the Crucifixion. This right after Saddam preached forgiveness and peace and love and "all that lovely hippysh*t!" (from the album Psychoderelict, by Pete Townshend).

Guess who just won a load of Iraqi "Hearts and minds"!

Mr. A

Can anyone remember any other head of state that was executed? I could

only remember Marie Antionette and King Louis. The others that come to

mind were either assasinated (JFK) or committed suicide (Hitler).



This (hanging) is the stark reality of war. If memory serves me correctly, the

US government ordered Che Guevara’s hands to be severed by a military

surgeon for verification purposes.



Imagine what will be done to Osama, when he’s captured. Yes, I said

Osama. My belief is that Bush will cart him out (ala Hannibal Lecter) in time

for the elections. Would it be goolish to set him on fire and throw him off a

100-story building…like those innocent Americans on Sept. 11th?

Yes, it would be ghoulish…but the little devil in me smiled when I read it…

Thanks for the correct spelling…I knew I screwed it up after I posted it.

I hope they sell tickets!

Didn't they off Milosevic?

It was a bitch what they done to Mussolini's father (in ref to the Billy Crystal joke).

Then there was Pope John, who "died" just in time for Pope John Paul. (alluded to in GodfatherIII.)

I stuck around in St Petersburg, When I thought it time for a change, Killed the Tsar and his ministers, Anastasia, screamed in pain. (You HAVE to know what that's from!)

Anwar Sadat.

My Client's uncle who was the president of Liberia and now my client is in exile and if I'll just send him the wire instrux to an account with $20M seed money, he'll wire in 160MM whatever they call ems in Liberian money! (Otherwise know as uncounted numbers in African nations)

Monteczuma. (few have cursed as well!)

As to Che's hands... Saul said to David, if you want to marry my daughter, bring me the foreskins of 10,000 Philistines.

It didn't take David too long to figure out that the Philistines were more likely to give up the foreskin AFTER they were dead. Soon thereafter he decided to forego the formality of just the foreskin and bring the whole thingy back! There was rumor of a man named Malachi who walked with Goliath in his pants so to speak who lived among the Philistines. David confirmed this rumor and had placed this particular trophy atop the basket of it's lesser brothers. In every town they paraded through, they were met with jewish women who wailed and wept over the loss of sweet, gentle Malachi (prolly not his real name) (This story comes from Joseph Heller's God Knows.)

Mr. A

It’s generally believed that Joe Stalin was poisoned by a group of his chief

lieutenants, which included Nikita Kruschev.

Charles I was beheaded.

Then there's Big Paul Castellano! (Who took his Amazing Journey before Sparks just like in Tommy!)

Mr. A

Stripes? Sounds like Bill Murray to me

Don’t forget Nicolae Ceausescu (chow-chess-koo), the former despot of Romania. His countrymen had a “trial” and then hauled him AND his wife out into the courtyard and blew them both away. They filmed the whole thing.

Stripes!

BZZZZZZZZZZTT!

No, I'm sorry. It was not Stripes OR Bill Murray.

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Didn't they off Milosevic?[/quote]

No, he died peacefully in his cell during, I think, year three, of his never-to-end war crimes trial.

Mussolini was hanged with fellow fascists as the Allies took Italy.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"... our puppet regime was. "[/quote]

That's a funny thing to call a government elected freely by a people that risked their lives to cast the first ballots used in their country in three decades....

[quote=skeedaddy2]Can anyone remember any other head of state that was executed? .

[/quote]

Many believe that Arafat was executed (actually....rather poisened by his own people).

I would not be suprised if that weree the case. Like Saddam, he was an evil monster that stole from his own people.

Peace to all...

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=mranonymous2u]

"... our puppet regime was. "[/quote]

That's a funny thing to call a government elected freely by a people that risked their lives to cast the first ballots used in their country in three decades....

[/quote]

Then why isn't anybody laughing?

Thanks for the Milosevic update, I guess I was thinking of Ciao!Chessgoo.

Fascism... By Musolini's own definition, this gov't was the most Fascist in history.

Mr. A

[quote=ZAID ABDUL AZIZ]

[quote=skeedaddy2]Can anyone remember any other head of state that was executed? .

[/quote]

Many believe that Arafat was executed (actually....rather poisened by his own people).

I would not be suprised if that weree the case. Like Saddam, he was an evil monster that stole from his own people.

Peace to all...

[/quote]

Zaid, I'm confused. By ending you posts with "Peace to all" exactly how many people on the planet are you excluding from "All"? You've already excluded Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wanting him gone. You call Arafat a monster, want U.S. soldiers to fight hezbolla and die doing it. So exactly what does peace to all mean to you?

I have a problem with somone who advocates death and in the same post wishes peace to all.

I stuck around in St Petersburg, When I thought it time for a change, Killed the Tsar and his ministers, Anastasia, screamed in pain. (You HAVE to know what that's from!)

Sympathy for the Devil....whooo whooo  Please ta metcha hope you know my name.

BING!!!

But whats puzzling you is nature of my game!

You gotta love the Stones!

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u][quote=mikebutler222][quote=mranonymous2u]

"... our puppet regime was. "[/quote]

That's a funny thing to call a government elected freely by a people that risked their lives to cast the first ballots used in their country in three decades....

[/quote]

Then why isn't anybody laughing? [/quote]

Just because you can't hear them doesn't mean they're not laughing at you....

[quote=mranonymous2u] Fascism... By Musolini's own definition, this gov't was the most Fascist in history.

Mr. A

[/quote]

See above, Re:laughter...

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you...

Re: Fascism. Look it up. (but we both know that you won't now don't we Mike?)

Thirdly, you are just too easy to get going! 

Mr. A

[quote=BondGuy] So exactly what does peace to all mean to you? [/quote]

If Churchill and Chamberlin could differ on the meaning of the word "peace" is it a wonder that there are various opinions here as well?

GODWIN'S LAW!

You lose!

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Re: Fascism. Look it up.  [/quote]

You do that, and then get back to us about your previous assertion...

[quote=mranonymous2u]Thirdly, you are just too easy to get going! 

Mr. A

[/quote]

You've confused "get going" with having a chuckle at your predictability

[quote=mranonymous2u]

GODWIN'S LAW!

You lose!

Mr. A

[/quote]

Typical A, loose on the details, the facts and the truth...

Goodwin's law, for those of you scratching your heads says; "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one".

Now, Hitler or Nazis were mentioned where, exactly?

I plant a seed, knowing how it's going to grow, and you take credit for its growing.

Typical. Boring. Butler.

Mr. A 

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=mranonymous2u]

GODWIN'S LAW!

You lose!

Mr. A

[/quote]

Typical A, loose on the details, the facts and the truth...

Goodwin's law, for those of you scratching your heads says; "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one".

Now, Hitler or Nazis were mentioned where, exactly?

[/quote]

Typical Mikebutler, making a "point" and then running away from it as fast as his legs can carry him (which tends to chafe his ears rubbing between his buttcheeks!)

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy] So exactly what does peace to all mean to you? [/quote]

If Churchill and Chamberlin could differ on the meaning of the word "peace" is it a wonder that there are various opinions here as well?

[/quote]

We all know what your implication was. You are intellectually dishonest.

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

I plant a seed, knowing how it's going to grow, and you take credit for its growing.

Typical. Boring. Butler.

Mr. A 

[/quote]

FWIW, when reading your posts I liberally apply Hanlon's razor .

That's a good one, and something new to me, I like it. Thank you for pointing it out!

FWIW I'll now have to read your posts with a larger dose of the IMAX Razor.

Projecting much?

Mr. A

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=mranonymous2u][quote=mikebutler222][quote=mranonymous2u]

GODWIN'S LAW!

You lose!

Mr. A

[/quote]

Typical A, loose on the details, the facts and the truth...

Goodwin's law, for those of you scratching your heads says; "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one".

Now, Hitler or Nazis were mentioned where, exactly?

[/quote]

Typical Mikebutler, making a "point" and then running away from it as fast as his legs can carry him (which tends to chafe his ears rubbing between his buttcheeks!) [/quote]

I see, "running away" is pointing out that you're simply wrong, providing the correct defintion and asking you where it applies. Thanks for settling that mystery for us all....

[quote=mranonymous2u] [quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy] So exactly what does peace to all mean to you? [/quote]

If Churchill and Chamberlain could differ on the meaning of the word "peace" is it a wonder that there are various opinions here as well?

[/quote]

We all know what your implication was. You are intellectually dishonest.

Mr. A

[/quote]

Just who do you claim to speak for with “we”, oh ye who incorrectly inferred something other than what was written? Those two men disagreed on the definition of the word "peace", period. No reference was made to Nazis or Hitler. No analogizes were offered about Nazis or Hitler. Hilter and Nazis were not germane to my comment.

Your misunderstanding of the definition of "Godwin's law" and confusion on your part about the simple English I put before you isn't my problem.

"Intellectually dishonest" is exactly what someone in your position, twisting what someone wrote/said and then misapplying a "law" or outside reference to it, is. Obviously, based on your posts, it’s habit forming….

We, the intellectually honest people, like to use the word "axiomatic" in times like these.

Axiomatic, strictly speaking, refers to the axiom  If A=B and B=C then A=C. Verbally though, we use the word axiomatic to describe situatons that are considered among the intellectually honest to be foundational to the conversation, we've all agreed that these things mean thus and such there's no need to argue about them anymore.

In this case, we all agree that when we mention Chuchill and Chamberlain the unmentioned third party is Hitler. This shortcut allows all of us to conjure up the failure of Chamberlain's attempts to negotiate with Hitler.

Since this is Axiomatic, my invocation of Godwin's Law was appropriate, and all your other claims are therefore baseless.

You lost, you are dismissed. This discussion is over.

NEXT!

Mr. A

BTW for those who might be new to the Godwin's Law, what Butler said above is the letter of it and this is its practical application.

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. Thus Godwin's Law serves also to impose an upper bound on thread length in general. However, it is rare for the person accused of an unfair comparison to Nazism to concede the argument themselves. Therefore, the argument will likely arise in another thread if the participants have a sufficient level of emotional attachment to the topic of debate. This calls the long-term utility of Godwin's Law into question.

It is considered poor form to arbitrarily raise such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's Law (in the above sense) will be unsuccessful. This is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception". "RGB's Restriction of Quirk's Exception", also states: "In cases where the subject of the comparison to Hitler fails to recognize the applicability of Quirk's Exception, Quirk's Exception shall not apply and Godwin's Law shall take effect in its normal manner." [\center]

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

We, the intellectually honest people,....[/quote]

You might have well begun that with "We, the people who can fly unassisted by machinery" or "We, the people who can hold our breath for days at a time"….. any of the above would have provoked the same outburst of laughter the intro you chose to use  did.

 [quote=mranonymous2u]

In this case, we all agree that when we mention Chuchill and Chamberlain the unmentioned third party is Hitler.[/quote]

In this case you and the frog in your pocket that you speak for are wrong.

There was no reference or comparison to Hitler or Nazis in my post as Goodwin’s Law would require to meet its definition. I could just as easily said Reagan and Carter disagreed about the definition of “peace”.

You simply incorrectly inferred something that wasn’t there. Nothing new there, the fact that you would continue to spin it, and not simply admit your error and move along is nothing new, either.

 However, it is rare for the person accused of an unfair comparison to Nazism to concede the argument themselves.

"There was no reference or comparison to Hitler or Nazis in my post as Goodwin’s Law would require to meet its definition. I could just as easily said Reagan and Carter disagreed about the definition of 'peace'.” Mikebutler222

Thank you Mike for proving the point. There is a speck of honesty in you that tricked you into revealing yourself.

You could have chosen Reagan and Carter, but you didn't. You could have chosen Lincoln and Jackson, but you didn't. You could have chosen Arafat and Sharon, but you didn't. You chose who you chose because of who and what they reference.  We know when we refer to Lincoln, Jackson we are referring to the time of the Civil War.  We know that when we refer to Arafat Sharon we are talking about Israel/Palistine. We know that when we refer to Carter Reagan we are NOT talking about the Revolutionary war, The Civil War, WWI or WWII or Viet Nam (specifically).

You chose who you chose because of what they are most associated with (dealing with Hitler and the Nazis).

It's a tenuous connection, for sure, but it is close enough to qualify you for LOSER! If you had chosen only Churchill and matched him with some different second person, Ghandi for example then the connection could not have been made. Too bad.

Mr. A

"when we refer to Arafat Sharon we are talking about Israel/Palistine"

True....but must we mention them in the same sentence?  Argghhh!

[quote=mranonymous2u] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You could have chosen Reagan and Carter, but you didn't. You could have chosen Lincoln and Jackson, but you didn't.[/quote]

I wonder if you think quoting me proving you wrong is somehow evidence in support of your incorrect assertion? I didn’t chose Reagan/Carter because the two are too recent an example and I felt they would inspire an off-topic discussion of the policies of each.

BTW, perhaps this went unmentioned at your community college, but Lincoln and Jackson were on opposite sides of the Civil War…

[quote=mranonymous2u] You could have chosen Arafat and Sharon, but you didn't. [/quote]

Actually, those two wouldn’t fit, as they were not two leaders from the same country who took opposing views of what “peace” means, as can be said of Reagan/Carter and Churchill/Chamberlain. The fact that you don’t understand this goes far in explaining just how you ended up on the cul-de-sac of logic you’re currently parked in.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

You chose who you chose because of what they are most associated with (dealing with Hitler and the Nazis). [/quote]

Wrong, as expected. I chose those two because they’re a high profile example of two leaders from the same nation that dealt in vastly different manners to achieve what each called “peace” when faced with the same scenario. That’s why the Reagan/Carter analogy fit. It didn’t matter who or what they faced, it’s that they differed on the methodology and definition of “peace” while representing the interests of the same nation. IOW, and I can’t make it much plainer for you, Hitler and Nazis weren’t germane to my point.

 [quote=mranonymous2u]

It's a tenuous connection, for sure, but it is close enough to qualify you for LOSER! If you had chosen only Churchill and matched him with some different second person, Ghandi for example then the connection could not have been made. Too bad.

Mr. A

[/quote]

Still, you don’t get it, Churchill/Gandhi is a poor analogy for the reasons stated above, they didn’t face the same situation and they weren’t leaders of the same nation. You simply inferred something I never suggested, and then ran like the wind with it. That’s a familiar pattern of yours.

Here’s a bit of advice I’m sure someone’s given you before, but you decided not to heed. “Put down the shovel”….

"... when faced with the same scenario..." and what scenario was THAT Mike?

"BTW, perhaps this went unmentioned at your community college, but Lincoln and Jackson were on opposite sides of the Civil War…"

But they were both Americans weren't they? And they disagreed too, didn't they?

You could have chosen Sharon/Arafat. You didn't.  Why you didn't is a different issue. You could have chosen any two people in the world, but you didn't. You could have chosen Kane and Abel or any other two fictional characters, but you did not. You chose who you chose and you are stuck with what your choice implies to all reasonable peoples who know the history of these two.

" IOW, and I can’t make it much plainer for you, Hitler and Nazis weren’t germane to my point."

Nor were they germane to the thread, that's why Godwin's Law is accepted by Internet Flame Warriors, because losers love to deflect the argument away from the point of the thread and towards something that is AXIOMATICALLY agreed to (that Nazism was bad).

" You simply inferred something I never suggested.."

This is the problem you run into when you run off your pie hole without knowing what you're talking about. You wind up using words in the wrong context and then trying to explain why you didn't mean what you said.

Its your choice again Mikebutler222, are you stupid, or are you a liar, or are you both?

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"... when faced with the same scenario..." and what scenario was THAT Mike? [/quote]

An outside enemy, A. Wasn’t that clear enough for you?  C/C had one, R/C another. It's already been explained to you that WHO that enemy was is immaterial to the point that they (C/C and R/C) disagreed about what "peace" means.

[quote=mranonymous2u]"BTW, perhaps this went unmentioned at your community college, but Lincoln and Jackson were on opposite sides of the Civil War…"

But they were both Americans weren't they? And they disagreed too, didn't they?[/quote]

Wow... uh, again,no. They may has failed to mention this at your local CC, but <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Jackson didn't consider himself an American citizen after he took the office of the president of a nation at war with the US.  Even if you weren’t aware of that, at least the fact that L/J didn’t hold the same office at different times and face a common enemy as C/C and R/C had should have been clear to you…

It would seem the reason you ran so far off the tracks here is, as you continue to demonstrate, you simply didn’t understand the analogy from jump street….As an RI once said, “Like a hog looking at a Timex”….

[quote=mranonymous2u]

You could have chosen Sharon/Arafat. You didn't. [/quote]

No, I couldn’t have, not and have been making the same point I was making. That being the point that continues (intentionally I have to assume) escape you. As with L/J, your latest two submissions were on OPPOSITE sides of a conflict, not two people who had held the same office and faced the same danger, responding in differing manners to achieve a different definition of “peace”….

[quote=mranonymous2u]

 Why you didn't is a different issue. [/quote]

Huh? Clearly this is beyond you, but the point I was making to bondtrader is that if two British PMs (and as mentioned later, two American presidents) can face the same situation and define “peace” differently, it shouldn’t be a mystery that people here with far less in common ALSO define it differently.

You continue to insist, in the absence of all evidence, that somehow the point involved Hitler and/or Nazis. There’s not much help I can give your there, but I hope you’ve budgeted for more than one shovle, because you seem intent on wearing this one and several more digging yourself deeper into this hole of your own creation…

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Its your choice again Mikebutler222, are you stupid, or are you a liar, or are you both?

 [/quote]

Getting even shriller in your laughable defense of your obviously mistaken assertion isn’t going to pull your chestnuts out of the fire, A. OTOH, I do want to thank you for the display. Impressive, I must say….

R/C? C/C?

"Wasn’t that clear enough for you?  C/C had one, R/C another. It's already been explained to you that WHO that enemy was is immaterial to the point that they (C/C and R/C) disagreed about what "peace" means."

Who are R/C and C/C?

Are we supposed to think you didn't mean Winston and Neville?

Mr. A

"An outside enemy..."

Who was that outside enemy?

Hmmm?

"It's already been explained to you that WHO that enemy was is immaterial to the point that they (C/C and R/C) disagreed about what "peace" means."

Meanwhile, Peace is Peace what WC and NC disagreed about was how to maintain/achieve it.

I understood your explication the first time.  You're not that difficult to follow (with the exception of the R/C, C/C thing). Following you is not the problem, pinning you down is the problem.

There is nothing that you have said that would be "beyond" any reasonable, sufficently educated person. Nor do I believe that you do not understand the weaknesses in your argument. This is why I prefer to think of you as Intellectually Dishonest. Your insistance that I don't understand your positions when I reduce them to the piffle that they were before you bloviated them full of your wasted breath is merely your Ad Hominem offense/defense. You know I understand what you are saying.

I would not be reasonable to expect that you can not grasp the fact that you had the universe of choices that you could have made for this comparison, you had the choice of infinite variables but you chose these people with these variables. Result, as stated, you are stuck with what these symbols represent.

Let's say you are painting a bridge. You are going to call it The Golden Gate Bridge and you are going to paint the bridge Red. International RED. You have many good reasons for calling it the Golden Gate Bridge, and you have every good reason for painting it Red. But when you grab the brush by the wet bristles and dip the handle into the paint can, you are still stained with the International Red because you used the brush wrong. 

It doesn't matter which variables you want to count and which ones you don't. All that matters is what you wound up with.

You invoke Churchill AND Chamberlin you have invoked the symbolism of WWII. That is a "comparison involving Hitler and the Nazis". You are comparing how NC tried to achieve peace with the Nazis to how WC did it (eventually).Now let's not forget that just a few hours earlier, you had posted a picture of Musolini's body. So WWII must have been close to your mind (relatively speaking in all things) at the time.

BTW, you didn't have to have intentionally Godwinned yourself. You may have inadvertantly stepped on the land mine. It doesn't matter, you still lose there Bill Buckner.

Having seen your style, though, I don't think that it was an accident that you brought this issue to the thread when "siding" with Bondguy's questioning of Aziz's definition of peace. It is very Mikebutler222like of you to use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference_objection Un-stated co-premise device (See Ad Hominem as Logical fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) to discredit Aziz.

A slick device that gives you plausible deniability. I'd be impressed with your talent if it had a shred of honesty about it.

Mr. A

I don’t regret throwing a grenade and watching a game of hot potato.

Eventually, its going to explode and someone will be destroyed. Thanks guys

for your tenacity, I always learn something new.



BTW, Mr.A’s writing style reminds me of “Dude”.

[quote=skeedaddy2] I don’t regret throwing a grenade and watching a

game of hot potato.

Eventually, its going to explode and someone will be destroyed. Thanks guys

for your tenacity, I always learn something new.



BTW, Mr.A’s writing style reminds me of “Dude”. [/quote]



C’mon, Skee! Dude was never THAT wrong THAT much!

I think both of you have waaaay too much time on your hands!!!

[quote=mranonymous2u]

R/C? C/C? [/quote]

Reagan/Carter, Churchill/Chamberlain, the names had already been used together numerous times in the conversation. The resulting shorthand should have been clear, even to someone who thought the president of the CSA considered himself a citizen of the USA in the middle of the Civil War.

Look if you couldn't understand the simple original analogy without twisting it down some silly self-serving path, and you can't keep up with resulting discussion there's even less reason to continue with you.

Make sure you have plenty of new shovels on hand and keep digging...

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Meanwhile, Peace is Peace what WC and NC disagreed about was how to maintain/achieve it. [/quote]

No, "peace" is clearly not “peace“, that‘s the essence of the lesson here. C/C and even R/C didn't simply differ on how to achieve it, they differed on what it means. Churchill made it clear there was no "peace" in allowing a wolf to sleep at your door. A wolf is a wolf and you can’t hold his nature against him. Chamberlain was certain (as was Carter) that the wolf could be tamed and the result would be “peace”.

If you can't grasp that, there's no hope for you.

[quote=mranonymous2u]I understood your explication the first time.[/quote]

Clearly you didn't, as you thought WHO the enemy was was important. Any possibility that you did understand was obviously erased when you began your foolish “you could have named anyone” tirade. Inserting Lincoln and Jackson, Sharon and Arafat? Clearly you didn’t follow.

[quote=mranonymous2u]You invoke Churchill AND Chamberlin you have invoked the symbolism of WWII. [/quote]

Obviously you still don’t get it, and you‘re a pathetic mind reader. It had nothing to do with WHO THE ENEMY WAS. If who the enemy was was critical the R/C comparison wouldn’t fit. The fact that you’ve inserted something I didn’t and persisted now for an enormous amount of bandwidth with your error says so very much about you, A. You could have simply admitted your error and moved along.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to research where I want to invest to get a part of the soon-to-be rocking shovel sales business…..

Jackson wasn’t the President of the Confederacy…Jeff Davis was.

[quote=Philo Kvetch]Jackson wasn't the President of the Confederacy...Jeff Davis was.[/quote]

Ouch, you're right. Thanks.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

....... I don't think that it was an accident that you brought this issue to the thread when "siding" with Bondguy's questioning of Aziz's definition of peace. [/quote]

Wow, it's amazing how you can get things twisted. I didn't "side" with Bondguy, my point was that the defintion of "peace" isn't universal.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

... to discredit Aziz. [/quote]

Again, you're waaayyyyyyy out there in left field. I wasn't discrediting Aziz, if anything I agree with his suggestion that you can wish peace to all AND note that some people are a threat to world peace and have to be dealt with, not ignored. Dealing with the wolf, as opposed to ignoring him or pretending he isn't really a wolf IS making strides for real peace.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Philo Kvetch]Jackson wasn’t the President of the Confederacy…Jeff Davis was.[/quote]

Ouch, you're right. Thanks.

"C/C had one, R/C another."

Okay, fair enough, I didn't pick up on it, even though I knew something was amiss because I didn't understand why you would have used a slash.

The other reason being that I never bought into your Reagan Carter line either in that I wasn't sure WHICH enemy you referred to. Iran or USSR. That's why I used Reagan Carter to show how the use of them eliminated other conflicts as opposed to the other examples I gave which related to a specific conflict.

As to Stonewall, BEFORE the Civil War, was he Estonian? Was he Mexican? Was he French? Or was he an American? Therefore this "even to someone who thought the president of the CSA considered himself a citizen of the USA in the middle of the Civil War." is another example of your intellectual dishonesty. Dishonest also in that your time line is self serving (and erroneous) in that if you are going to follow your own logic the two would not have been president of their respective countries at the same time (surely NC and WC were not the leader of England at the same time) so how is it honest to twist my statement from a prewar stance to a mid war observation?

" silly self-serving path" Self serving? How does your error serve me? I don't give a tinker's damn. You keep making those strawmen, that's what you're good at.

"No, "peace" is clearly not "peace", that‘s the essence of the lesson here."

Yes, that is the essence of the lesson here. Mikebutler222 insists that all things have a relativistic definition, and that these definitions are determined by whatever suits Mikebutler222's whim at the moment.

On the other hand, we have Mr Anonymous 2 U who is much more of an absolutist. He believes that words and symbols and phrases have meaning. Meaning that can be defined and have been agreed upon by society and cultures over the millennia. Peace is peace, we know what peace is. We know what "peace itself" is. All rational men desire peace most of the time. NC and WC both wanted the same thing. They both wanted not to be at war. Even during the war (or maybe even mostly during the war) they wanted to be at peace again.

"Churchill made it clear there was no "peace" in allowing a wolf to sleep at your door. A wolf is a wolf and you can’t hold his nature against him. Chamberlain was certain (as was Carter) that the wolf could be tamed and the result would be "peace"."

Aside from the fact that this is overly simplistic, it means nothing, it's more of your puffed up piffle. It says more to prove that peace in NC's mind is the same peace that is WC's ultimate goal than it does to justify your "position" that "... 'peace' is clearly not 'peace'." Relativism is only valid if you are internally consistent within the same line of reasoning, otherwise it's what's known as gibberish. "'A' can mean 'B' in situation '1' and it ('A') can mean 'W' in situation '2'." That's Relativism. But if 'A' means 'B' and or 'W' and or 'X' (where 'X' = an infinite number of variables) in situation '1' that's not Relativism.

"If you can't grasp that..."

"Clearly you didn't, "

"... as you thought WHO the enemy was was important. "

"Clearly you didn’t follow."

What you are confused by is the concept of "Can't vs. Won't" just as you are confused by the difference between "Grasp vs. accept as valid."

I won't follow you down your illogical ratholes and won't accede points where your only evidence is your ad hominem attack.

""Any possibility that you did understand was obviously erased when you began your foolish "you could have named anyone" tirade. Inserting Lincoln and Jackson, Sharon and Arafat? "

This is your intellectual dishonesty again. You understand what I meant and how it relates to your posit and yet you will obfuscate the logical conclusion of the exercise. You could have chosen anytwo, you chose these two.

mranonymous2u wrote:

You invoke Churchill AND Chamberlin you have invoked the symbolism of WWII.

Obviously you still don’t get it, and you‘re a pathetic mind reader. It had nothing to do with WHO THE ENEMY WAS. If who the enemy was was critical the R/C comparison wouldn’t fit.

It's YOU who don’t get it. You did what you did regardless if that was your intent or not. When you compare Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill you are talking about their interaction with Hitler UNLESS YOU SPECIFY OTHERWISE which you did NOT in the original post.

The Comparison with Reagan Carter does not work, it never worked! It was a blind alley bait that I didn't want to go down with you! Furthermore, Reagan/Carter didn't show up until AFTER you had Godwined yourself so it is STILL a blind alley regardless of your insistence to the contrary.

"my point was that the defintion [sic]of "peace" isn't universal."

Well you're WRONG. And that doesn't even matter. This is a discussion (now) about whether you Godwinned yourself or not, that's all.

You Godwinned yourself, for sure. You tripped over it and did a faceplant into A Cream of Godwin pie. Happens to the best of us sometimes. C'est la Guerre, yes no?

I'm happy that you are a tireless rebutter and I thank you for the exchange, it was most enjoyable. I learned a few things (more from what I wrote than from what you wrote, but you showed me a thing or two too) so it's all good.

Mr. A

For a listing of the various Netizen flame warriors, follows this link which defines the Tireless Rebutter.

I know I am at least severalteen of these characters. How many are you? (by you I don't mean just Mikebutler222, I mean also you, gentle reader)

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutte r.htm

Mr.A

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=mranonymous2u]

....... I don't think that it was an accident that you brought this issue to the thread when "siding" with Bondguy's questioning of Aziz's definition of peace. [/quote]

Wow, it's amazing how you can get things twisted. I didn't "side" with Bondguy, my point was that the defintion of "peace" isn't universal.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Damn, Mikebutler doesn't agree with me...again!

For the record, my complete back and forth with zaid on this thread and the other thread where we went a couple rounds, i was just screwing around. Surprised that anyone took this so seriously.

That said, I disagree, there is only one peace,

That said, I disagree, there is only one peace,

That's not true.  There are nuances to peace and prices to pay and trade offs for having peace.

It may be a peaceful society where women are forbidden to walk the streets without the escort of a male relative and are forbidden from wearing anything that exposes a square inch of skin.  That is a peace that I wouldn't be very happy with.

You could claim it is peaceful because all of the undesireable people have been removed from society.

It was very peaceful on the mental ward after Randle McMurphy was lobotomized.

Saying there is only one peace is like saying there is only one kind of ice cream.    We know that to be false.

"For the record, my complete back and forth with zaid on this thread and the other thread where we went a couple rounds, i was just screwing around. Surprised that anyone took this so seriously. "

As I mentioned in a PM to BondGuy...I didn't take our jousting very seriously either. I doubt our views are that far apart.

Bab,

Peace itself is peace itself. There are varying degrees of non-peace.

Right within your explicaion shows that the acceptance of the idea of the ideal.

We can all disagree over how best to acheive peace, what peace is worth and so on, but peace is peace.

It's not like ice cream, it's like Black, or White. Black is the absence of all color. White is the absolute harmony of all colors. Between them are infinite shades of gray. But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as Black or such a thing as White.

Mr. A

Very philosophical. You’re just full of good b.s.

It's a bottomless well spring!

Mr. A

[quote=babbling looney]

That said, I disagree, there is only one peace,

That's not true.  There are nuances to peace and prices to pay and trade offs for having peace.

It may be a peaceful society where women are forbidden to walk the streets without the escort of a male relative and are forbidden from wearing anything that exposes a square inch of skin.  That is a peace that I wouldn't be very happy with.

You could claim it is peaceful because all of the undesireable people have been removed from society.

It was very peaceful on the mental ward after Randle McMurphy was lobotomized.

Saying there is only one peace is like saying there is only one kind of ice cream.    We know that to be false.

[/quote]

There's more than one kind of ice cream?

Since when is tyranny peace? In any form?

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Bab,

Peace itself is peace itself. There are varying degrees of non-peace.

Thanks for making my point.  Your definition of peace and the conditions that make "peace" is not necessarily mine.  Therefore there is not "one peace" as Bond Guy asserts.

Right within your explicaion shows that the acceptance of the idea of the ideal.

We can all disagree over how best to acheive peace, what peace is worth and so on, but peace is peace.

By who's definition?  "Peace in our time" certainly meant different things to different people.  Maybe I think it is peaceful if all the dogs in the neighborhood were euthanized.  (You can take this as a crude analogy to the Jews, Germany, and the willful ignorance of the German people about the death camps) while you think that it is a horrible thing and don't mind the barking of dogs at night. 

Maybe the teachers who advocate drugging disruptive children to achieve peace in the classroom think this is a good idea. Maybe the children who are chemical zombies don't really like this definition of peace.

It's not like ice cream, it's like Black, or White. Black is the absence of all color. White is the absolute harmony of all colors. Between them are infinite shades of gray. But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as Black or such a thing as White.

Sure, it is like ice cream.  If we say that ice cream represents "Peace" then there are many flavors of peace from pistachio to rocky road.  I may not like pistachio and would not confuse it with rocky road, but they are both defined as ice cream.   You cannot assert that there is one "Peace" when my comfort with your definition of peace is not the same as yours with it.

The absence of conflict or war does NOT necessarily equate with peace.  That is much to simplistic a world view.  Unfortunately it is that simplistic view that is espoused by the left wing that will ensure that we never achieve real peace......by MY definition.

Mr. A

BTW:  I am not advocating killing all the dogs  or any thing else.  Just making analogies.   However, we need to be aware that there are people out there who do advocate these types of actions.   Can we say IRAN and "Imanutjob" the President.

And to answer Bond Guy.   Of course there is more than one kind of ice cream.  Yogurt, Fat Free, Sugar Free, Sorbet, Italian Gellato.  Not to mention the various flavors.  If you say ice cream, or PEACE, then you need to be aware that there are many varieties of each.

Tyranny is peace if you are the tyrant or you agree with and profit by the tyranny.

Done debating..... going on a mini vacation.  Have fun.

So if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

"MY definition."

Please, tell us what that definition is.

Please don't use word's like "peaceful" in your definition.

Mr. A  

[quote=joedabrkr]So if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it still make a sound? [/quote]

In Bab's neck of the woods, yes.

Unless it falls into a pile of ice cream.

Mr. A

Almost forgot

"(You can take this as a crude analogy to the Jews, Germany, and the willful ignorance of the German people about the death camps) "

GODWIN"S LAW!

You lose!

That girl bes funny, I don't care who you are!!

Mr. A

" If we say that ice cream represents "Peace" then there are many flavors of peace from pistachio to rocky road."

"We" didn't say ice cream represents "Peace" you did. Just because you did, doesn't mean we have to "Grasp" it.

The gammut of ice cream flavors runs from Pistachio all the way to Rocky Road? Where in this spectrum would one find vanilla? Are all flavors of ice cream nut inclusive? What about strawberry?

That girl funny!

Ha Ha AND Peculiar!

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

[quote=joedabrkr]So if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it still make a sound? [/quote]

In Bab's neck of the woods, yes.

Unless it falls into a pile of ice cream.

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

" If we say that ice cream represents “Peace” then there are many flavors of peace from pistachio to rocky road."

"We" didn't say ice cream represents "Peace" you did. Just because you did, doesn't mean we have to "Grasp" it.

The gammut of ice cream flavors runs from Pistachio all the way to Rocky Road? Where in this spectrum would one find vanilla? Are all flavors of ice cream nut inclusive? What about strawberry?

That girl funny!

Ha Ha AND Peculiar!

Mr. A

"Slice of pie, Peace of Cake!"

What's that one from? I'll give you a hint, The character was played by John Lithgow, and another hint, he was speaking to a Russian. (of course he didn't say Peace of cake , but you know what is meant).

Mr.A

It was a sequel to one of the most popular movies of all time.

Mr. A

"He is not, however, a German shepherd"

DOGWIN'S LAW

You SLOT!

For all you Dyslexic Agnostics out there!

Mr. A

And several butcher's aprons

The larch

Bring out your dead

[quote=mranonymous2u]

“He is not, however, a German shepherd”

DOGWIN'S LAW

You SLOT!

For all you Dyslexic Agnostics out there!

Mr. A

You guys are out of control.

I believe that true peace is neither black nor white nor grey....true peace is outside the realm of the tension of opposites, which govern our very perception and limited capacity for comprehension...therefore, like the tao, cannot really be spoken of...only alluded to. 

Example, in the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, prior to their 'fall' were considered to be at peace (I like to think of the state of peace internally as a state of Amorality)...then they ate from the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil and through their new comprehension were bound by it's constant, incessant swings between extremes and resulting LACK of peace.  Peace to me implies the ultimate constant.

Light requires dark to have contrast, therefore without dark there is no light, without evil there is no good and as long as 'good' exists, so therefore will there be evil and therefore no 'peace' or reconcilliation between the two.

The world of entropic forces and energy cannot be at peace...our minds can only achieve momentary glimpses of what peace is like, since we will soon return to the swings of this temporal world.

Dog (or however you define the concept of grand creative source of all things) is peace and is unbound by this constantly changing unresting universe. 

There cannot be more than one peace, since peace implies a union or reconcilliation of the tension of opposites.

The Yogis of India call it 'Hatha' or union of the Sun and Moon to describe that ultimate peace.

I think you disread when you respond "that true peace is neither black nor white nor grey....true peace is outside the realm of the tension of opposites,". Intrinsic in that response is the supposition that there is a comparison between balck and white. No such connection is intended.

True Peace might be achieved by the absolute absence of stress (black) or the absolute harmony of all tensions (white). In either case the state is bliss.

Mr. A

Ah…the subtleties and inadequacies of language that only metaphor and analogy can come close to resolving.  I understand your analogy better now.  Always fun to read your posts MR. A.

I will say though that I actually believe that our minds CAN achieve this peace (even though I'm contradicting myself based on my previous post on this subject) in this lifetime. 

It is just enormously diffcult and only a relative few (that we know of) in the history of man have achieved this pinnacle of human capability.

WOw, a simple topic turns into how we lost the war under Bush/Cheeny/Rumi and other BS from DNC1/CNN, DNC2/MBC and DNC3/ABC. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



What a freaking horrible two weeks. Jihad against the west in Somalia was crushed in a week. Saddam dead. Number 2 in Afgan dead. Number 2 in Iraq captured. Iran leadership blasted in a vote by their people. Bonus, no smoking in the capital building. Thousands of terrorists killed around the world. 11 at Club Gitmo being force fed with a 2x4. ACLU quiet for a day. Dude and Mr. A are happy that Nancy Pelosi is in charge.



Bush and CHeeny never looked so good with Nancy 3rd in line. Nancy’s first move Jack “No money now” Murther, need I say more.



Dude and I… I think your posts were week so I wanted to give you a bit of energy for the next week.