StarDestroyer.Net BBS

And someone actually wondered why I pointed out his use of the term Homo Jihadi raises eyebrows. If he meant to name it after something that was well known, instead of being a ignorant jibe against people who oppose America politically, he just went and totally destroyed any chance of us believing the former.

Disgrace to Mencken wrote:So tell me, how do they actually think? If I'm wrong as you say, tell me what is right!

Wait. You actually think they are doing all of this because they are purely evil, without any other goal or motivation, and then think that I have to prove you are an imbecilic propaganda victim? I feel like a coprophile asked me how to maintain a proper diet.

But let's entertain you: they think of achieving a better world. Simple. Thoroughly misguided, but this is what they think. Jogurt showed you a few groups and their goals. They often act this way because the situation leaves no recourse, and -mostly in the case of leftist groups- sometimes because their ideology says so. They all have a common way of operating: using violence to get what they want. Which, hey, thousands of rulers and opposers have done throughout history. Still monsters?

But this is all academical. Please, go play in traffic. You'll meet your namesake to much rejoice.

Darth Mencken apparently lives in a world running on Care Bears logic where bad people do bad things because they just like being bad. Get that Care Bear Stare at the ready, peeps!

Why do people like Al-Quaida and co. do what they do? Easy, because they're convinced that they're pursuing noble goals and that ends justify the means. Has it ever been different with any other group of fanatics? Heck, the US tortures, murders and violates human rights regularly under the same belief!

Dr. Trainwreck wrote:

Disgrace to Mencken wrote:So, I should just dismiss most if not all news as BS (TV, radio, Internet, books I read, newspapers like the NYT, magazines like Time and Newsweek, and occasionally Foreign Policy), and believe that "those dastardly Muslims" are good guys, who have truly benign motives (not just killing people just to make others despair and feel insecure), and that any misdeeds attributed to them are accidental, slanderous, and/or actually justified?

Even this strawman is more sane than your current position. Do you honestly think that anybody could "kill just to make others despair"? Just how deluded are you, and just how much propaganda have you swallowed over the years to think it is possible for such a man to exist?

Newsflash, shithead. There is a thing called 'dehumanization', which chieftains have been selling to their subjects for thousands of years. It is used against a foreign person or people, so your subjects will be hardened against them, learn not to care about their fate, and eventually see them as monsters deserving of extinction. It has been a staple of politics since the dawn of time. And you, like morons since the dawn of time, are buying into it. Go on, deny it.

"Kill just to make others despair." Well, if that wasn't a primary motive of those who planned and carried-out 9/11, then what was? It sure didn't hamper our ability to hit back, or discourage/dissuade us from doing so.

And beginning with, "There is a thing called 'dehumanization.'" Yes, that is being done. And not just (or most blatantly or egregiously) by the US and its allies.

Love your name, btw! Reflects the organization of your thoughts!

Stark wrote:

Eleas wrote:But Dr Trainwreck, surely you cannot deny that the Saracen congenitally hates America for its freedom?

You certainly can't say otherwise if even a single individual does something to 'us' 'we' don't like. Not judging a huge and varied population based on the actions of a minority is crazy!

And before you say anything these situations were NEVER started or made worse by the CIA. It's all the fault of foreigners I can conveniently group together as enemies.

Yes, America's meddling in the region (propping-up the Shah of Iran until he was deposed by the Ayatollah Kooka-meini; Then supporting that wonderful individual Saddam Hussein in his war against said Ayatollah) has made us a fair number of enemies.

It's not JUST our trashy culture, which we beam all around the world (Tho I say, if Britney's belly-button offends them, we should show her full-frontal nude!). One of Bin Laden's specific gripes was Saudi Arabia's accomodating the most powerful infidel nation in the world.

Metahive wrote:Darth Mencken apparently lives in a world running on Care Bears logic where bad people do bad things because they just like being bad. Get that Care Bear Stare at the ready, peeps!

Why do people like Al-Quaida and co. do what they do? Easy, because they're convinced that they're pursuing noble goals and that ends justify the means. Has it ever been different with any other group of fanatics? Heck, the US tortures, murders and violates human rights regularly under the same belief!

So, only those who explicitly declare themselves to be evil, are or should be considered such?

"Noble goals . . . ends justify the means." The EXACT same thing could be said about those parties, nations, and governments responsible for the multi-million death tolls of the 20th century (Mao Tse Tung and Joe Stalin definitely killed in the tens of millions, while Pol Pot likel came as close as anyone ever did to creating hell on Earth - But ask each man, he would've said he was building a better world).

And yes, I don't agree with everything the US does. Our actions from 2003 onward in particular, constitute great propaganda AGAINST us! Truly, the Dark Side was ascendant in the US!

Y'know, I started the OA thread he's talking about, where mocking of the Jihadi concept took place and I don't remember all that much mockery. I believe I said it makes no sense to spend a decade or more raising a human bomb when you can whip something up from household materials in half an hour, tops. Then someone else (and it may have actually been someone-else) said it was unlikely impoverished religious fanatics would get the sort of resources and expertise for such a project anyway.

I think I included it later in a list of things that are just silly to have in a "rock-hard" sci-fi setting. Frankly, the Neotens, provolves and Abdicators received far more attention and ridicule from me.

So first let me say, Darth Mencken, that I think you might just have a small problem with overreaction.

Second, no one is claiming that evil doesn't exist in this world or that you need to run around cackling and twirling a long mustache to be evil. What people ARE saying is that the real world is rather more complicated than good guys and bad guys and that people, whatever their moral status, do things for reasons. A lot of the times these are economically motivated reasons, ideology and politics also. But no one spent 5 years training and preparing for the day they would die, and take thousands of people with them because they just felt like ruining someone's day.

Heck, why don't you look into some of the things that paragon of virtue our good 'friend' Israel has done in the Middle East.

The reason terrorism succeeds it that it politically traps the opposing side so they are forced to choose between two very bad options. Either they do nothing, and appear weak and unable to protect their own people, or they react by clamping down on security, maybe engaging in reprisals and now the terrorists can justly claim that the other side are repressive tyrants. 'We' were attacked, thousands of innocent people died. 'We' launched a war of revenge that has killed the square of those innocents in 'their' innocents, and practically turned ourselves into a police state. Who in this conflict is right? Who is the hero? Answer: no one, you're asking the wrong question. There are no heroes and villains where both sides torture and kill at will. You should ask 'who in this conflict is more likely to pack up their toys and go home before the other side is wiped out to the last man, woman and child.'

"Noble goals . . . ends justify the means." The EXACT same thing could be said about those parties, nations, and governments responsible for the multi-million death tolls of the 20th century (Mao Tse Tung and Joe Stalin definitely killed in the tens of millions, while Pol Pot likel came as close as anyone ever did to creating hell on Earth - But ask each man, he would've said he was building a better world).

Just so would have spoken Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman etc. All of whom did distasteful things for what they saw as a noble purpose, and I suspect with the advantage of hindsight and your own cultural biases you'd be inclined to agree with 3 out of 4. What people keep telling you is that the world is not that simple. Thirty years before 9/11, 'we' funneled hundreds of millions of dollars (mostly illegally, I should add) in weaponry to support the Mujhadeen (sp?) in their struggle against the Soviets. We provided weapons and training to Bin Laden and his freedom fighters (ol' Osama was even Time's Man of the Year) and when they'd done what 'we' wanted we left them there, heavily armed and mired in poverty and simmering conflicts that had been set aside for a common enemy, but not forgotten. This is (I thought) common knowledge.

And so it goes, when Hitler first rose to power he was the darling of America because he supported a hardline against the communists. A few years later it was taboo to say bad things about 'Uncle Joe' Stalin and the Soviets, for they were our dear friends and allies against the Nazis. Care to guess how long if took after the war to stop calling him 'Uncle Joe?' Not long at all.


You will not get far in this world unless you learn to see things from another's perspective, to consider whether they might, in fact, have a valid point. How confidant are you that there could be no legitimate reason to despise the US?

Of course, there is a great difference between hating a nation, or wanting a harm a nation, and intentionally targeting innocent people. There you are spot on about the existence of evil. But even then people do not strap semtex to their chests because they want to "make others despair" they do it because there's something specific they hope to gain from, and they think it will get them (or more accurately their faction as they will be dead) what they want.

Darth Mencken wrote:So, only those who explicitly declare themselves to be evil, are or should be considered such?

No, you dumbass. How did you get that out of what I said? My point is that people don't do bad things Just For the Evulz(TM) as you're insinuating.

"Noble goals . . . ends justify the means." The EXACT same thing could be said about those parties, nations, and governments responsible for the multi-million death tolls of the 20th century (Mao Tse Tung and Joe Stalin definitely killed in the tens of millions, while Pol Pot likel came as close as anyone ever did to creating hell on Earth - But ask each man, he would've said he was building a better world).

And you think they were totally insincere about that? That this was just a mask so they could massacre millions of people? Pfft, grow up.

And yes, I don't agree with everything the US does. Our actions from 2003 onward in particular, constitute great propaganda AGAINST us! Truly, the Dark Side was ascendant in the US!

What, only since 2003? You better drop that blissful naivete and ignorance quick.

Just out of curiosity is to early to start a betting pool on how long it'll be before this guy gets shown the door?

Disgrace to Mencken wrote:"Kill just to make others despair." Well, if that wasn't a primary motive of those who planned and carried-out 9/11, then what was? It sure didn't hamper our ability to hit back, or discourage/dissuade us from doing so.

Make the Americans leave the Middle East, and most importantly (to Osama) make them leave Saudi Arabia? It couldn't be, could it?

And beginning with, "There is a thing called 'dehumanization.'" Yes, that is being done. And not just (or most blatantly or egregiously) by the US and its allies.

Oh, dear Disgrace. This is where you come so close to understanding, and then you get hit by a train. Yes, shithead, it's also being done by the terrorists. The usage of also suggests that there are other people besides the terrorists who dehumanise folks because they believe whatever suits their leaders. But durr, language is hard.

Love your name, btw! Reflects the organization of your thoughts!

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?

Mr. Coffee wrote:Just out of curiosity is to early to start a betting pool on how long it'll be before this guy gets shown the door?

I reckon it's too early. See, Disgrace's problem is not stupidity per se, but immaturity and lack of perspective. Developing a more nuanced outlook can be done, with time and effort. And besides come on, it's SDnet; we'll be beating him up every time he fails to improve.

Dr. Trainwreck wrote:

Disgrace to Mencken wrote:"Kill just to make others despair." Well, if that wasn't a primary motive of those who planned and carried-out 9/11, then what was? It sure didn't hamper our ability to hit back, or discourage/dissuade us from doing so.

Make the Americans leave the Middle East, and most importantly (to Osama) make them leave Saudi Arabia? It couldn't be, could it?

And beginning with, "There is a thing called 'dehumanization.'" Yes, that is being done. And not just (or most blatantly or egregiously) by the US and its allies.

Oh, dear Disgrace. This is where you come so close to understanding, and then you get hit by a train. Yes, shithead, it's also being done by the terrorists. The usage of also suggests that there are other people besides the terrorists who dehumanise folks because they believe whatever suits their leaders. But durr, language is hard.

Love your name, btw! Reflects the organization of your thoughts!

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?

Mr. Coffee wrote:Just out of curiosity is to early to start a betting pool on how long it'll be before this guy gets shown the door?

I reckon it's too early. See, Disgrace's problem is not stupidity per se, but immaturity and lack of perspective. Developing a more nuanced outlook can be done, with time and effort. And besides come on, it's SDnet; we'll be beating him up every time he fails to improve.

Well, I'd point out I'm not the one who changed someone else's tag to "Disgrace," or called another listmember "Shithead" more than once already. Or how mature these acts are. But . . .

Metahive wrote:

Darth Mencken wrote:So, only those who explicitly declare themselves to be evil, are or should be considered such?

No, you dumbass. How did you get that out of what I said? My point is that people don't do bad things Just For the Evulz(TM) as you're insinuating.

"Noble goals . . . ends justify the means." The EXACT same thing could be said about those parties, nations, and governments responsible for the multi-million death tolls of the 20th century (Mao Tse Tung and Joe Stalin definitely killed in the tens of millions, while Pol Pot likel came as close as anyone ever did to creating hell on Earth - But ask each man, he would've said he was building a better world).

And you think they were totally insincere about that? That this was just a mask so they could massacre millions of people? Pfft, grow up.

And yes, I don't agree with everything the US does. Our actions from 2003 onward in particular, constitute great propaganda AGAINST us! Truly, the Dark Side was ascendant in the US!

What, only since 2003? You better drop that blissful naivete and ignorance quick.

No, not ONLY since 2003. Just our mask slipped a little then.

And I do believe Mao, Stalin, etc. were sincere there. It wasn't just a mask so they could massacre millions of people. Do you think any of those millions who they did massacre were the least bit impressed about this?

And yes, I'm sure Bin Laden considered himself a good guy and a freedom fighter. Tell that to the folks who didn't make it out of WTC or the Pentagon alive. "He was a good guy fighting a noble cause. You were acceptable collateral damage"!

Hey, Darth Munchkin, how about YOU tell that to the 600 thousand dead Iraqis.

Have a very nice day
-fgalkin

Ahriman238 wrote:Y'know, I started the OA thread he's talking about, where mocking of the Jihadi concept took place and I don't remember all that much mockery. I believe I said it makes no sense to spend a decade or more raising a human bomb when you can whip something up from household materials in half an hour, tops. Then someone else (and it may have actually been someone-else) said it was unlikely impoverished religious fanatics would get the sort of resources and expertise for such a project anyway.

I think I included it later in a list of things that are just silly to have in a "rock-hard" sci-fi setting. Frankly, the Neotens, provolves and Abdicators received far more attention and ridicule from me.

So first let me say, Darth Mencken, that I think you might just have a small problem with overreaction.

Second, no one is claiming that evil doesn't exist in this world or that you need to run around cackling and twirling a long mustache to be evil. What people ARE saying is that the real world is rather more complicated than good guys and bad guys and that people, whatever their moral status, do things for reasons. A lot of the times these are economically motivated reasons, ideology and politics also. But no one spent 5 years training and preparing for the day they would die, and take thousands of people with them because they just felt like ruining someone's day.

Heck, why don't you look into some of the things that paragon of virtue our good 'friend' Israel has done in the Middle East.

The reason terrorism succeeds it that it politically traps the opposing side so they are forced to choose between two very bad options. Either they do nothing, and appear weak and unable to protect their own people, or they react by clamping down on security, maybe engaging in reprisals and now the terrorists can justly claim that the other side are repressive tyrants. 'We' were attacked, thousands of innocent people died. 'We' launched a war of revenge that has killed the square of those innocents in 'their' innocents, and practically turned ourselves into a police state. Who in this conflict is right? Who is the hero? Answer: no one, you're asking the wrong question. There are no heroes and villains where both sides torture and kill at will. You should ask 'who in this conflict is more likely to pack up their toys and go home before the other side is wiped out to the last man, woman and child.'

"Noble goals . . . ends justify the means." The EXACT same thing could be said about those parties, nations, and governments responsible for the multi-million death tolls of the 20th century (Mao Tse Tung and Joe Stalin definitely killed in the tens of millions, while Pol Pot likel came as close as anyone ever did to creating hell on Earth - But ask each man, he would've said he was building a better world).

Just so would have spoken Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman etc. All of whom did distasteful things for what they saw as a noble purpose, and I suspect with the advantage of hindsight and your own cultural biases you'd be inclined to agree with 3 out of 4. What people keep telling you is that the world is not that simple. Thirty years before 9/11, 'we' funneled hundreds of millions of dollars (mostly illegally, I should add) in weaponry to support the Mujhadeen (sp?) in their struggle against the Soviets. We provided weapons and training to Bin Laden and his freedom fighters (ol' Osama was even Time's Man of the Year) and when they'd done what 'we' wanted we left them there, heavily armed and mired in poverty and simmering conflicts that had been set aside for a common enemy, but not forgotten. This is (I thought) common knowledge.

And so it goes, when Hitler first rose to power he was the darling of America because he supported a hardline against the communists. A few years later it was taboo to say bad things about 'Uncle Joe' Stalin and the Soviets, for they were our dear friends and allies against the Nazis. Care to guess how long if took after the war to stop calling him 'Uncle Joe?' Not long at all.


You will not get far in this world unless you learn to see things from another's perspective, to consider whether they might, in fact, have a valid point. How confidant are you that there could be no legitimate reason to despise the US?

Of course, there is a great difference between hating a nation, or wanting a harm a nation, and intentionally targeting innocent people. There you are spot on about the existence of evil. But even then people do not strap semtex to their chests because they want to "make others despair" they do it because there's something specific they hope to gain from, and they think it will get them (or more accurately their faction as they will be dead) what they want.

Hello

As I believe I said in my introductory post (well before the epithets "Disgrace" and "Shithead" started getting hurled my way), I said right out that I intended the Homo Jihadi to be tongue-in-cheek from the start, that "hard science" in no way rules such out (It doesn't violate any of the known laws of physics, AFAICT - The laws of physics in no way rule-out impracticality or anything born of fanaticism or rage), and there are one or two things in OA that I myself, a longtime member, find a little implausible.

Now for the real world:

"Reprisals . . . repressive tyrants." Frankly, if someone hijacked an airliner I was on and used it as a kamikaze, or if I was in the building they rammed, I would not be impressed by their claims of moral justification. And it is hard to untangle the web of half-truths and lies that our govt told in JUST the past decade or so, but invading Afganistan at least seemed legitimate at the time.

And I understand perfectly that Bin Laden and the US each saw the other as the lesser of two evils when the Soviets were invading Afganistan (much as with Hitler, and then Stalin, much earlier, and with Saddam vs. Iran later on). George Orwell was spot-on in his depiction of the ongoing (though constantly shifting) struggle between three global superpowers in "1984."

Indeed, there are legitimate reasons to despise the US. And that didn't just start when we invaded Iraq again in 2003, or even when we supported the Shah of Iran up until the Ayatollah Kooka-meini drove him out of the country.

As for suicide bombers doing what they do, not just to make others despair, but because they think it will get them something specific that they want. Well, guess we need to ask them (or their surviving peers) whether they think it worked/is working.

fgalkin2 wrote:Hey, Darth Munchkin, how about YOU tell that to the 600 thousand dead Iraqis.

Have a very nice day
-fgalkin

No, I agree our invading Iraq was WRONG on many levels, and those responsible for the decision to do so should face an international tribunal, and then face the gallows. THERE I believe the U. S. of A. was quite possibly the WRONGEST it has ever been!

Btw, I have yet to call anyone names on this list ("Disgrace to Mencken," "Shithead," and now "Darth Munchkin").

Mr. Coffee wrote:Just out of curiosity is to early to start a betting pool on how long it'll be before this guy gets shown the door?

Yes, it's too soon. He hasn't done anything ban-worthy, and we've all said stupid things on the board. Be nice, Coffee.

Heck, I'm even a bit happy to have an OA contributor on the board, just to get an idea of how they came up with some things. Did you write any other articles, Mencken?



Many bad things came from the US reprisal invasions (and does anyone dispute that Afghanistan was a reprisal?) and even some good. Tyrants were toppled, infrastructure built and a democracy created that might just last longer than the next commercial break. We'll see, anyways. The good outcomes don't mitigate or excuse the bad, they simply co-exist in this imperfect world we live in.

Everyone does things for reasons that seem good to them. This usually involves tribalism, looking after "your own" and trying to screw over the other guy. Sadly (if only because it'd be more honest) it's generally only young and stupid people who do things purely for ideological reasons, most of the world is more inclined to be driven by pragmatic concerns and invent moral justifications for what they would have done anyway.

As others have pointed out, terrorism is not new, nor is it specific to Islam/the Middle East. There are terrorists on every continent save Antarctica (and possibly Australia, I don't remember hearing of any Aussie terrorists.) For that matter using the commonly accepted definition of terrorism "Use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" technically makes every government, military and petty criminal in this world a terrorist.

Ahriman238 wrote:
As others have pointed out, terrorism is not new, nor is it specific to Islam/the Middle East. There are terrorists on every continent save Antarctica (and possibly Australia, I don't remember hearing of any Aussie terrorists.) For that matter using the commonly accepted definition of terrorism "Use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" technically makes every government, military and petty criminal in this world a terrorist.

Well in Australia we had Jihad Jack, who was home grown and an Islamist. We also have David Hicks who was fighting with the Taliban, although they must have dunked him underwater a couple of times before he confessed (might not count as a terrorist, and more an enemy combatant). Lets not forget Jack Van Tongeren, but because he was white* and he blew up Asian restaurants, so we didn't label him a terrorist even when he escaped from prison at a time post 9/11 where that term was popularly used.

* Yes I am aware Van Tongeren is of mixed blood, but a white supremacist. Kind of like how Lord Voldemort was mixed blood with muggle heritage but hated them.

mr friendly guy wrote:

Ahriman238 wrote:
As others have pointed out, terrorism is not new, nor is it specific to Islam/the Middle East. There are terrorists on every continent save Antarctica (and possibly Australia, I don't remember hearing of any Aussie terrorists.) For that matter using the commonly accepted definition of terrorism "Use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" technically makes every government, military and petty criminal in this world a terrorist.

Well in Australia we had Jihad Jack, who was home grown and an Islamist. We also have David Hicks who was fighting with the Taliban, although they must have dunked him underwater a couple of times before he confessed (might not count as a terrorist, and more an enemy combatant). Lets not forget Jack Van Tongeren, but because he was white* and he blew up Asian restaurants, so we didn't label him a terrorist even when he escaped from prison at a time post 9/11 where that term was popularly used.

* Yes I am aware Van Tongeren is of mixed blood, but a white supremacist. Kind of like how Lord Voldemort was mixed blood with muggle heritage but hated them.

There, see? There are Muslim terrorists, but they can be easily lost in the vast herd with the Christian terrorists (didn't one try to blow up the Dome of the Rock circa 2004/2005?) the white supremacists, the black supremacists. We have Irish and Spanish, French and Basque. There are terrorists of every conceivable religion, color and creed. Anywhere and anytime a group feels oppressed, decides to lash out, and shows an appalling lack of restraint. What a horrifyingly diverse world we live in.


I'm willing to take Mencken's word at face value if he says it was written tongue in cheek. I imagine A LOT of Orion's Arm is meant that way, but doesn't quite come across as such. And if it's clear he didn't exactly do a lot of research or make an in-depth study of terrorism and the motives behind it, depressingly few people ever do.

Even if something's meant as tongue in cheek that doesn't remove it from criticism. Jokes that perpetuate harmful stereotypes still, well, perpetuate harmful stereotypes

Edit: Also, even if it's kosher, if your defense is "it's a joke" and it's not funny, now you've failed another way.

Well, I'd point out I'm not the one who changed someone else's tag to "Disgrace," or called another listmember "Shithead" more than once already. Or how mature these acts are. But . . .

No, but you are the one who uses the insults as an excuse to avoid the argument. Guess which one is frowned upon in SDnet.

Darth Mencken wrote:No, not ONLY since 2003. Just our mask slipped a little then.

And I do believe Mao, Stalin, etc. were sincere there. It wasn't just a mask so they could massacre millions of people. Do you think any of those millions who they did massacre were the least bit impressed about this?

And yes, I'm sure Bin Laden considered himself a good guy and a freedom fighter. Tell that to the folks who didn't make it out of WTC or the Pentagon alive. "He was a good guy fighting a noble cause. You were acceptable collateral damage"!

So, saying that terrorists have more complex motivations than "DURR, WANNA MAEK PEEPUL MISERUBL, LOL", now means you're a terror symphatizer?

Do the world a favor, find a large vat full of battery acid and throw yourself in, you stinker. Tongue in cheek? More like foot in mouth.

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:Even if something's meant as tongue in cheek that doesn't remove it from criticism. Jokes that perpetuate harmful stereotypes still, well, perpetuate harmful stereotypes

Edit: Also, even if it's kosher, if your defense is "it's a joke" and it's not funny, now you've failed another way.

This ^

Darth Mencken might have been intending satire, but it's about as tasteful as Republicans depicting Obama as a monkey. It doesn't subvert the stereotype at all, simply relying on crude 'us vs them' kneejerk humour.

Dr. Trainwreck wrote:

Well, I'd point out I'm not the one who changed someone else's tag to "Disgrace," or called another listmember "Shithead" more than once already. Or how mature these acts are. But . . .

No, but you are the one who uses the insults as an excuse to avoid the argument. Guess which one is frowned upon in SDnet.

And my insults prior to my being called "Disgrace" and "Shithead" were . . . ?

Ahriman238 wrote:

Mr. Coffee wrote:Just out of curiosity is to early to start a betting pool on how long it'll be before this guy gets shown the door?

Yes, it's too soon. He hasn't done anything ban-worthy, and we've all said stupid things on the board. Be nice, Coffee.

Heck, I'm even a bit happy to have an OA contributor on the board, just to get an idea of how they came up with some things. Did you write any other articles, Mencken?



Many bad things came from the US reprisal invasions (and does anyone dispute that Afghanistan was a reprisal?) and even some good. Tyrants were toppled, infrastructure built and a democracy created that might just last longer than the next commercial break. We'll see, anyways. The good outcomes don't mitigate or excuse the bad, they simply co-exist in this imperfect world we live in.

Everyone does things for reasons that seem good to them. This usually involves tribalism, looking after "your own" and trying to screw over the other guy. Sadly (if only because it'd be more honest) it's generally only young and stupid people who do things purely for ideological reasons, most of the world is more inclined to be driven by pragmatic concerns and invent moral justifications for what they would have done anyway.

As others have pointed out, terrorism is not new, nor is it specific to Islam/the Middle East. There are terrorists on every continent save Antarctica (and possibly Australia, I don't remember hearing of any Aussie terrorists.) For that matter using the commonly accepted definition of terrorism "Use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" technically makes every government, military and petty criminal in this world a terrorist.

It's great to talk to someone who can disagree with me, w/o calling me names (disgrace, shithead, and most recently stinker))!

Yeah. I haven't been too active on OA of late. Have some ideas dancing around (short stories, and about gengineered races trying to establish themselves). But am a chronic procrastinator.

At least one of my other major contributions is linked to in the (much derided) Homo Jihadi article. The "Neo-Dogs." Inspired heavily by the creatures of the same name in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" (the novel, not the movie which I refer to as "StarSHIT Troopers"!). The Neo-Dogs (also called "Calebs," as they were also in "Starship Troopers") were not created specifically to counter the Jihadi, but were produced (in the OA timeline) about the same time, and took part in the international counter-Jihadi campaign of the mid-late 21st century. I do credit Heinlein in the Neo-Dog write-up. He didn't go into much detail about them in the novel (spent WAY to much time on the politics & philosophy of his future society). OA has borrowed SOME ideas from established authors (Splices from DiFilippo, Uplifts from Brin, Moldies from Rucker), and always credits them. A little like fanfic here, I guess.

One other contribution of mine, I think in the Lifestyle or Society & Culture section of OA, would be "Genemod Human Dating And Matching Services." I figure sometime around the mid-late 21st century (when OA presumes significantly modded Human-derived sapients will something one might run into on the street), there might be a demand for such services catering specifically to those who are different enough genetically, that they might not be able to have children the old-fashioned way with "baseline" (i.e. Unmodified) Humans. This article also in somewhat tongue-in-cheek (more obviously so, I hope), meant to highlight the possible ramifications of commercialism, consumerism, fad, and vanity playing a role when hereditable genetic modifications start being done on Humans.

Regarding terrorism. Yes, I'm well aware that the US is regarded as the Evil Empire in some places by some people, not entirely without justification. I don't feel this makes me a terrorist sympathizer, any more than it means I agree with Dubya & Co. when I think Saddam was a beast and didn't shed a tear when he was executed.

As for terrorism (specifically the ones behind 9/11) being justified because of America's not-universally-welcome presence in the Mideast. How exactly were the WTC and the people inside at the time, responsible for America's military and political meddling in Saudi Arabia (Bin Laden's original home), or wherever? It's like terrorists consider any and all Americans (or Westerners in general) perfectly and equally valid targets.

Am I biased? Guilty as charged. I'll admit, it's hard not to be when hardly a week has passed since 9/11/2001 without some terrorist incident (suicide attack or otherwise), perpetrated specifically by Muslims, being reported on whatever news network one watches. Could I at least be forgiven here?

How are all the kids that died in the many invasions of the many countries America fucks over responsible for the actions of their governments? Or don't they count?

I mean its obvious you don't understand how power disparity shapes conflict, but come on.