Greetings from Darth Mencken

[Metahive]

Again, where have I even HINTED at race thus far?

Maybe in the parts where you paint a cartoonishly distorted picture of people from a specific region, huh?

Lemme' guess, next comes "You're the real racist for calling me a racist!".

And no, I sure as shit don't agree with more than 0.002% of Dumya's policies, if even that! Going after Bin Laden (initially - He honestly seemed to forget sometime after mid-2003), a guy who had something to do with killing thousands of Americans on American soil, was about all Dumya did that I agree with!

I guess those 0.002% are the ones containing all the bigoted stuff then.

[Darth Mencken]

Again, where have I even HINTED at race thus far?

Maybe in the parts where you paint a cartoonishly distorted picture of people from a specific region, huh?

Lemme' guess, next comes "You're the real racist for calling me a racist!".

And no, I sure as shit don't agree with more than 0.002% of Dumya's policies, if even that! Going after Bin Laden (initially - He honestly seemed to forget sometime after mid-2003), a guy who had something to do with killing thousands of Americans on American soil, was about all Dumya did that I agree with!

I guess those 0.002% are the ones containing all the bigoted stuff then.

Nope, I neither know nor care what ethnicity you are, and I'm not gonna tell you mine. And going after Bin Laden (or the modest number of Human-beings who thought he was a great fellow) was not bigoted. Unless hating those who plan and proudly carry-out mass murder, constitutes bigotry.

Hate them for what they do (to those who personally have nothing to do with what they say irks them), not for who they are.

[Stark]

Check this out: you can replace the name 'Bin Laden' with 'miscellaneous Western leader' and it has the same meaning ... more, really, since the west fucks much more than it gets fucked.

If someone shot a high-level western leader because he orchestrated the deaths of thousands, would this be a hate crime? Would the killers be heroes? And to whom?

[CaptHawkeye]

But western peoples are civilized Strak.

[Metahive]

Nope, I neither know nor care what ethnicity you are, and I'm not gonna tell you mine.

What the flying fuck has that to do with anything? It's like the wires in your brain are misaligned and prone to misfires, resulting in total non-sequiturs like this. Explains your worldview though.

As for your ethnicity, that was settled long ago. Proud Moron from Lower Moronistan, which as we know lies between the United States of Imbecile and Shitheadland on Planet Dumb.

And going after Bin Laden (or the modest number of Human-beings who thought he was a great fellow) was not bigoted. Unless hating those who plan and proudly carry-out mass murder, constitutes bigotry.

So, proclaim to not be a Bushboy, but still trying to attribute Bin Laden's death to the Miserable Shrub who in reality couldn't have cared less about the man? You should stop lying if only because you're so bad at it.

Also, Bush the Lesser is an unrepentant mass-murderer. If an Iraqi commando came to him at night, filled him with hot lead and dumped his body unceremoniously somewhere in the Atlantic, I guess you'd stand behind this action out of principle, right?

Hate them for what they do (to those who personally have nothing to do with what they say irks them), not for who they are.

And the brown skin, their funny language and their weird beliefs! Don't forget that, it's the most important part. It's why Westerners can live with their governments abusing/massacring them in droves out of imperialist greed and spite.

[Darth Mencken]

Nope, I neither know nor care what ethnicity you are, and I'm not gonna tell you mine.

What the flying fuck has that to do with anything? It's like the wires in your brain are misaligned and prone to misfires, resulting in total non-sequiturs like this. Explains your worldview though.

As for your ethnicity, that was settled long ago. Proud Moron from Lower Moronistan, which as we know lies between the United States of Imbecile and Shitheadland on Planet Dumb.

And going after Bin Laden (or the modest number of Human-beings who thought he was a great fellow) was not bigoted. Unless hating those who plan and proudly carry-out mass murder, constitutes bigotry.

So, proclaim to not be a Bushboy, but still trying to attribute Bin Laden's death to the Miserable Shrub who in reality couldn't have cared less about the man? You should stop lying if only because you're so bad at it.

Also, Bush the Lesser is an unrepentant mass-murderer. If an Iraqi commando came to him at night, filled him with hot lead and dumped his body unceremoniously somewhere in the Atlantic, I guess you'd stand behind this action out of principle, right?

Hate them for what they do (to those who personally have nothing to do with what they say irks them), not for who they are.

And the brown skin, their funny language and their weird beliefs! Don't forget that, it's the most important part. It's why Westerners can live with their governments abusing/massacring them in droves out of imperialist greed and spite.

You're so full of shit, it's just got to come out your mouth. Your definition of "racism" is a bit different from mine. I thought it was about ethnicity. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

One thing I agree with, Bush the Lesser is an unrepentant mass-murderer. I would like to see him and his entire mis-Administration face an international tribunal, and then face the gallows.

[madd0ct0r]

Ironically, I actually came across this concept in a short story anthology recently: Ministers of Grace, by Tad Williams.

The basic setting is two space age cultures clashing repeatedly in a dirty war. One culture is the 'people of the book' and one bans reiligion. Not exactly subtle, but a good sotry. The Martyred Sister is described as "Muslim, Copt, or perhaps Australian Aboriginal Jew." The assassin she helps is Catholic

[Metahive]

You're so full of shit, it's just got to come out your mouth. Your definition of "racism" is a bit different from mine. I thought it was about ethnicity. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

OK, are you suffering from ADD or some form of autims? What's with these constant irrelevant sidetracks? I'm asking because it's no fun to kick disabled people.

[Darth Mencken]

You're so full of shit, it's just got to come out your mouth. Your definition of "racism" is a bit different from mine. I thought it was about ethnicity. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

OK, are you suffering from ADD or some form of autims? What's with these constant irrelevant sidetracks? I'm asking because it's no fun to kick disabled people.

I expect you to just repeat yourself above in response, but here goes.

You accuse me of "racism." You've done this more than once I believe. IMO, nothing I have said so far is even as racist as the recent likening of the Iranian President to a monkey.

I have no problem at all with persons of Middle Eastern descent, nor even with folks who subscribe to the religion of Islam (whether they made the choice as adults to convert, or were brought up in the religion and stuck with it). Nor even with folks who dislike America or Americans.

My beef is with individuals and organizations who consider any and all Americans to be perfectly acceptable targets for murder (as much as if the victim or victims were dictators or military commanders who ordered or carried-out lethal assaults), and consider it praiseworthy for any one among them to take it upon themselves (via taking hostages and killing them, hijacking airliners and turning them into kamikazes, or strapping-on a bomb vest and detonating themself in a disco, supermarket, or bus terminal).

America, at worst, is sometimes stupid. Choosing its leaders, and its wars, too rashly and for unwise or dishonest reasons. And among other things, we need to improve the accuracy of our drones, and our intelligence gathering.

But, how many Americans would consider it acceptable, justified, or honorable to PURPOSELY target any random person or persons (in Afganistan, or Iraq while we were there, or Pakistan where we found Bin Laden), for the simple purpose of creating a body count for its own sake, and shaking-up and demoralizing the populace? Sure SOME Americans would think so. But how many, numerically or proportionally?

Is this or is it not the preferred MO of Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc?

[Stark]

Are you just ignoring that nobody wants to 'create a body count for its own sake', or are you pretending 'demoralising the populace' isn't a goal? I can only imagine how your tiny brain works with second-order violence plans (where the violence is deliberately conducted to attract reprisals or oppression, which strengthens the control of the violence-plotting body over their supporters).

[Dr. Trainwreck]

You accuse me of "racism." You've done this more than once I believe. IMO, nothing I have said so far is even as racist as the recent likening of the Iranian President to a monkey.

Here, you stupid munchkin. I've already said why people are calling you a racist:

And you are presumptious as hell, to utilise Mencken's name when you are so ignorant. Do you even know what jihad means? Jihad is a struggle in the name of God, both spiritual (to make yourself a better person, highest form) and physical (to combat unbelievers with or without force, lowest form). But, y'know, who cares about the whole meaning of it if we can just distill it to retards blowing their balls up, eh?

Here. That's why people are calling you a racist. If it's honest, you're a racist. If it's a joke, it's the same caliber as the "Nobama is a nigger" jokes on Facebook, therefore also racist. Take your pick.

Munchkin.

[Darth Mencken]

You accuse me of "racism." You've done this more than once I believe. IMO, nothing I have said so far is even as racist as the recent likening of the Iranian President to a monkey.

Here, you stupid munchkin. I've already said why people are calling you a racist:

And you are presumptious as hell, to utilise Mencken's name when you are so ignorant. Do you even know what jihad means? Jihad is a struggle in the name of God, both spiritual (to make yourself a better person, highest form) and physical (to combat unbelievers with or without force, lowest form). But, y'know, who cares about the whole meaning of it if we can just distill it to retards blowing their balls up, eh?

Here. That's why people are calling you a racist. If it's honest, you're a racist. If it's a joke, it's the same caliber as the "Nobama is a nigger" jokes on Facebook, therefore also racist. Take your pick.

Munchkin.

Well, how can I argue with someone who proclaims himself "His Imperial Majesty" or somesuch? Tosser!

Can we just kill this thread now please? Repeatedly, I've said my problem is with organizations and individuals (not ethnic groups or religions) whose stated and displayed purpose is to carry out mass murder on non-combatants. Yet somehow, by your definition, this makes me a racist (Note how you quoted yourself, not me, to make this point!)!

As for what Jihad means. Well, there's what it says in the book, in official releases and publications. And then there's what folks who claim to believe in such do. Most people (even Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and their followers) earnestly believe they are right, are guided by some higher calling, and are trying to make the world a better place. That's what they TELL themselves and others when they can. Need I say more?

Again, if all you're going to do is continue calling me racist (quoting YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ME to make this point), I humbly suggest this thread be euthanized.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Is Homo Jihadi a term you coined as an allusion to real world events, yes or no? If it is, then I quoted myself because I've already told you what the problem with this thing was, but you haven't responded. Do you understand the implication? I repeated my point because you didn't answer to it the first time, and you didn't answer it because you grasped at my swearing as an excuse; which is extremely bad form in this forum. And you keep avoiding this point, again grsping at my style rather than my substance.

You know what? Indeed, this thread needs to die a death by mod. We cannot keep it on if you're a dishonest weaseling style-over-substance little shit.

[Darth Mencken]

Is Homo Jihadi a term you coined as an allusion to real world events, yes or no? If it is, then I quoted myself because I've already told you what the problem with this thing was, but you haven't responded. Do you understand the implication? I repeated my point because you didn't answer to it the first time, and you didn't answer it because you grasped at my swearing as an excuse; which is extremely bad form in this forum. And you keep avoiding this point, again grsping at my style rather than my substance.

You know what? Indeed, this thread needs to die a death by mod. We cannot keep it on if you're a dishonest weaseling style-over-substance little shit.

Yes, "Homo Jihadi" is a term I coined as an allusion to real world events. It's been on OA for nearly a decade now. And in all that time, prior to my bringing it up on this forum (a choice I've been kicking myself over lately), not once has it been called "racist," or otherwise inappropriate in any similar way. Not when I first created the write-up (on OA), or while it was being discussed and developed there. Nor any time since there. This forum was the first indication I ever got that it could be considered "racist."

So, do you think OA and most/all folks there are racist, because not a single one in all this time ever took me aside and said, "Dude, this thing you wrote, and the term you invented here, is/could be considered 'racist'"?

[Darth Mencken]

Are you just ignoring that nobody wants to 'create a body count for its own sake', or are you pretending 'demoralising the populace' isn't a goal? I can only imagine how your tiny brain works with second-order violence plans (where the violence is deliberately conducted to attract reprisals or oppression, which strengthens the control of the violence-plotting body over their supporters).

I do recognize that demoralizing a populace can be a goal (or a means to an end, anything from conquest to persuading them that it's not worth the trouble messing with you).

And second-order violence plans, as you describe, seem to pretty accurately describe the M.O. of Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. Pretty much the groups (not whole nations, ethnicites, or ALL members of a given religious faith) I had in mind when I thought up the Homo Jihadi.

So, how well would you say such "second-order violence plans" are working for those who choose to employ them in R/L? Sure, any strategy or approach has its ups and downs. But overall?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Yes, "Homo Jihadi" is a term I coined as an allusion to real world events. It's been on OA for nearly a decade now. And in all that time, prior to my bringing it up on this forum (a choice I've been kicking myself over lately), not once has it been called "racist," or otherwise inappropriate in any similar way. Not when I first created the write-up (on OA), or while it was being discussed and developed there. Nor any time since there. This forum was the first indication I ever got that it could be considered "racist."

So, do you think OA and most/all folks there are racist, because not a single one in all this time ever took me aside and said, "Dude, this thing you wrote, and the term you invented here, is/could be considered 'racist'"?

You needn't kick yourself, we are already kicking you in the proverbial balls here; you may simply cut and run now, if you wish.

And if nobody in whatever shithole "OA" means never told you, not once in ten years, that this might be somehow inappropriate, it reflects something huge on them and nothing on us. Which might mean it's time for you to ditch them and come here, there are also members who aren't as big assholes as I am and you could get an education by asking politely. And the occasional flamefest as well, which is just a bonus.

[Stark]

I do recognize that demoralizing a populace can be a goal (or a means to an end, anything from conquest to persuading them that it's not worth the trouble messing with you).

And second-order violence plans, as you describe, seem to pretty accurately describe the M.O. of Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. Pretty much the groups (not whole nations, ethnicites, or ALL members of a given religious faith) I had in mind when I thought up the Homo Jihadi.

So, how well would you say such "second-order violence plans" are working for those who choose to employ them in R/L? Sure, any strategy or approach has its ups and downs. But overall?

Do you have any move other than 'begging the question'?

Here's a tricky one. Would those organisations involved in conflict designed primarily to increase their control and maybe serve their political program do better or worse by dropping terrorism and engaging in conventional conflict?

Please consider in your answer that the United States is one of these organisations.

[madd0ct0r]

Yes, "Homo Jihadi" is a term I coined as an allusion to real world events. It's been on OA for nearly a decade now. And in all that time, prior to my bringing it up on this forum (a choice I've been kicking myself over lately), not once has it been called "racist," or otherwise inappropriate in any similar way. Not when I first created the write-up (on OA), or while it was being discussed and developed there. Nor any time since there. This forum was the first indication I ever got that it could be considered "racist."

So, do you think OA and most/all folks there are racist, because not a single one in all this time ever took me aside and said, "Dude, this thing you wrote, and the term you invented here, is/could be considered 'racist'"?

Possibly racist, possibly casually oblivious. OA is a constructive scf-fi generator, while stardestroyer is a combative dig down to the truth kind of place. We get idiots advocating genocide on a monthly basis, so it's something people like to stomp on, especially when the person fights and dosen't go "Huh. Never looked at it like that."

hell, here might even be the same kind of people as the OA, just ten years older and more engaged with the world.

[Darth Mencken]

Yes, "Homo Jihadi" is a term I coined as an allusion to real world events. It's been on OA for nearly a decade now. And in all that time, prior to my bringing it up on this forum (a choice I've been kicking myself over lately), not once has it been called "racist," or otherwise inappropriate in any similar way. Not when I first created the write-up (on OA), or while it was being discussed and developed there. Nor any time since there. This forum was the first indication I ever got that it could be considered "racist."

So, do you think OA and most/all folks there are racist, because not a single one in all this time ever took me aside and said, "Dude, this thing you wrote, and the term you invented here, is/could be considered 'racist'"?

Possibly racist, possibly casually oblivious. OA is a constructive scf-fi generator, while stardestroyer is a combative dig down to the truth kind of place. We get idiots advocating genocide on a monthly basis, so it's something people like to stomp on, especially when the person fights and dosen't go "Huh. Never looked at it like that."

hell, here might even be the same kind of people as the OA, just ten years older and more engaged with the world.

Well, I sure as fuck don't advocate genocide against anyone. So I don't feel bad for "fighting." And I'm telling the truth when I say, this is the first I've heard that the term "(Homo) Jihadi" was racist.

[madd0ct0r]

Do you disagree with the numerous explanations of why it is that have been posted in this thread?

[Darth Mencken]

Do you disagree with the numerous explanations of why it is that have been posted in this thread?

In a word, yes. I don't think any of the explanations are valid. I don't stereotype a whole people, ethnicity, religion, or nation (what I thought was the definition of racism). The "Homo Jihadi" article on OA has been seen and read by many people (long time members, and folks who joined more recently). It was discussed extensively, as new contributions are, on the initial submission and thru development. It's been on the site now for about 9 years. And not once in all that time, particulary during the development-related discussions early on, did anyone tell me, "This is racist, and so are you"! I sure as fuck don't think it's comparable to using an all-too-common racial slur against the President on Facebook.

So, either I and basically everyone else on OA is an oblivious racist (one who literally doesn't perceive the inherent "racism" in the use of the term "(Homo) Jihadi"), or this group just includes more than its share of shit-stirrers.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Ah, so nobody else tells you that this is racist, so whoever does tell you must be wrong. Appeal to popularity much?

And frankly I don't see any reason why you and these others on OA cannot be called obliviously racist. The way you use the term has obvious connotations. Denying it once is natural, denying it twice means you are probably a racist as well. Just coming out and saying "sorry, never knew, I'll change that shit right now" would exonerate you of the charges. Keeping up your pleas of innocence will not. But language is hard, and all these things.