A Voice of Reason Rises Above the Hysteria

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Ron Paul is obviously an idiot. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being Bin Laden sympathizers? Is this guy aware that the Islamic Fundamentlaists want to overthrow these regimes?

I must have missed that part of the speech. You are correct in that this statement is inaccurate, so I retract my earlier statement of agreement with almost all of the speech. Still I will say that I approove of his sentiment and general points.

It is true that the people of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan support the Taliban and are Bin Laden sympathizers. And yes, I will agree that Ron Paul is an idiot if he assumes that Middle Eastern governments in any way represent their people.

To many:

I did not mean that our support was solely based on UN recognition of the northern alliance. I know that this is mostly an alliance of conveniance, and that our primary motive is revenge. I was merely replying to those who assume that we are breaking international law by supporting the Northern Alliance.

[Roland]

"Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being Bin Laden sympathizers? Is this guy aware that the Islamic Fundamentlaists want to overthrow these regimes?"

You are seeing things way too simply. First, Pakistan has rogue elements esp in its ISI, and Saudi Arabia has rogue elements in the decadent inbreds (aka royal family). Second, the regimes (as many others) have a simple policy wrt fundamentalists: as long as you make antiwestern propaganda, collect money for that, etc, no problem (this is the safety valve). When you go against the domestic regime, you are toast if they get their hands on you.

So it is fair to say that those regimes are supporters of terrorist networks at least with dolus eventualis (~criminal negligence, or whatever you anglos call it).

[Berzerker]

nc -

Could be. It's just that I barely think what you accused me of saying, which is the main reason I doubted saying it.

You argued the Taliban was worth having as an enemy meaning you approve of forcing others to pay for and fight them and subjecting Americans here at home to terrorism to further foreign policies that create the motive to attack Americans.

I meant "some" Ls (which I thought was implied), you assumed "all" (perhaps because of your attitude towards me).

You said ONLY a libertarian would be so narrow-minded and dogmatic. And again, I was not the only one who "assumed all" libertarians were the target of your insult so stop trying to argue it is only me who read your insult as a broad indictment.

Yes it is, but I never meant we were in doubt as to his thoughts on this, since I we were discussing something else.

It doesn't matter if you were discussing something else.

-"Is he overly sensitive"

Let's just say I was flattered by his overall message, and if I were you or SC I would be asking him a question or two. However, I have no wish to drag him into our sad litte dust-up.

You didn't answer my question. And how could you be flattered by an overall message that contained this criticism of your behavior:

Richard - what happened to the intelligent and mature debator that used to be on Apolyton? First you call the speaker a narrow-minded fool for not adding irrelevent material in his speech, and then you toss insults about at random. I miss the person who was so coherent and articulate in threads like the affirmative action debate.

I'd love to hear the glowing endorsement he made about your behavior that could overcome this indictment.

Indeed. But I never said you were the only one to do so. I said you are uniquly sensitive to my comments, a phenomenon that pre-dates this thread.

We all got on your case for your behavior, how was my response "unique"? And this "pre-dating" only explains why you've tried to single me out. I see right through your BS.

Don't flatter yourself.

I'm the one still here holding your feet to the fire, true? How is holding your feet to the fire "flattering" myself?

If you even wanted to understand what I'm saying we'd be long done by now.

Given you just got around to "explaining" this "mis-communication" in your last post, if we were done with this long ago you would have never explained yourself, duh.

Of course that is an "if" that isn't true.

Here is what you said:

There is a reason why it is the business for those of us who are human. Think about it.

That means you consider anyone who doesn't think it is our business is not being human. The "if" is true...

It was niether, but I've explained that and more to no avail.

Oh BS, you meant it as an insult, stop dancing and pay the piper.

That's what Idid say.

No you didn't, you called him (and libertarians) narrow-minded and dogmatic only to add much later on that you agreed with much of what he said. I didn't say you did not later express approval of his comments, I said you did not express that approval in the original post in which you insulted him/us.

[n.c.]

You argued [1] the Taliban was worth having as an enemy meaning [2] you approve of forcing others to pay for and fight them and [3] subjecting Americans here at home to terrorism [4] to further foreign policies that create the motive to attack Americans.

So by saying #1 I was also saying 2-4? Isn't that something.

-"You said ONLY a libertarian"
Which is neither "some" nor "all."

-"so stop trying to argue it is only me who read your insult as a broad indictment."
I'll go one better: how about I never start! (Because I've taken care of that already.)

-"It doesn't matter if you were discussing something else."
I did realize awhile ago that what I say doesn't matter much to you. I'll pass on a 2nd or 3rd explaianyion of this.

-"You didn't answer my question."
Should I go back and see if I have any unanswered questions? Nah, not worth it. Anyway, I don't see him as not overly sensitive. Of course, you and he did not have exactly the same reaction (in an overall sense).

-"I'd love to hear the glowing endorsement"
I never said it was that, just that I ws flattered by a comparison he made. You are welcome to find it.

-"how was my response 'unique'?"
Interesting question, but I don't have the energy. Of course, what I said was that your sensitivity to me is unique. I believe you describe it as being able to see my "BS."

-"holding your feet to the fire, true?"
Well, not the way I define that phrase.

-"Given you just got around . . . ."
I didn't follow this part of your post.

-"That means you consider . . . ."
-"you meant it as an insult . . . ."
That means what DF and I understood it to mean. I've explained it at least once already.

-"I said you did not express that approval in the original post"
That is true. However, after that you said "[y]eah, that's what you meant to say" which is what I responded to above.

Anyway, we are very much repeating ourselves. I not sure there is a much of a point.

[Berzerker]

nc -

So by saying #1 I was also saying 2-4? Isn't that something.

You argued for (1) and (4) which entails (2) and (3). It's called cause and effect.

Which is neither "some" nor "all."

It means all. Why else would you point out the speaker was a libertarian if you meant only the speaker? The fact he is a libertarian should be irrelevant if you meant only to attack him.

I'll go one better: how about I never start! (Because I've taken care of that already.)

You mean you won't in the future, not that you won't ever start.

I did realize awhile ago that what I say doesn't matter much to you. I'll pass on a 2nd or 3rd explaianyion of this.

Maybe you should try offering something of relevance if you don't want me explaining what you have offered is irrelevant.

Should I go back and see if I have any unanswered questions?

Feel free, I've tried to respond to all your "points", not dodge questions exposing hypocrisy.

I don't see him as not overly sensitive. Of course, you and he did not have exactly the same reaction (in an overall sense).

Of course not, he's a fan of yours. Yet he offered a lengthy indictment of your behavior.

I never said it was that, just that I ws flattered by a comparison he made. You are welcome to find it.

You mean the comparison when he said we were all equally culpable and that he was dis-appointed by your behavior or the part about him not expecting any better from us? He didn't back up his comment about us, he did back up his indictment of you. I'm not surprised you like the ad hominem insult he sent our way though.

Interesting question, but I don't have the energy. Of course, what I said was that your sensitivity to me is unique. I believe you describe it as being able to see my "BS."

Hmm...dodging again. Being able to see through your BS does not entail a "unique" sensitivity, several people saw what you did, and apparently they are no longer here to see what you've done since.

Well, not the way I define that phrase.

And yet another dodge. You said I was flattering myself for pointing out the simple fact I was the only one here still ripping you a new a$$hole.

I didn't follow this part of your post.

In which of your posts did you finally "explain" that you meant only the speaker was the target of your insult? Like I said, you saved that explanation until very recently thereby refuting your claim that we'd have finished this a long time ago if I would only listen to your explanation.

That means what DF and I understood it to mean. I've explained it at least once already.

Don't speak for him please. Like I said, it doesn't take a genius to know anyone who agrees with him shares your indictment.

That is true. However, after that you said "[y]eah, that's what you meant to say" which is what I responded to above.

Yes, I expressed skepticism over your claim that you actually meant to tell us you agreed with much of what the speaker said in the same post you were calling him narrow-minded and dogmatic. I see through your BS.

Anyway, we are very much repeating ourselves. I not sure there is a much of a point.

The point is simple, don't jump into threads to insult people unless they have insulted you first. Try slowly re-reading what Richard said about you. What he said about us doesn't tell us anything because he didn't back it up with proof leaving us to ponder just why he expected us to behave like you...

[Ramo]

I did not mean that our support was solely based on UN recognition of the northern alliance. I know that this is mostly an alliance of conveniance, and that our primary motive is revenge. I was merely replying to those who assume that we are breaking international law by supporting the Northern Alliance.

You weren't replying to that at all. You're putting words in my posts, so to speak. Again, I wrote this:

"I didn't support the start of the war principally because there wasn't a viable alternative. After all, the NA is nothing more than a bunch of murdering thugs, marginally better than the Taliban."

To which you responded with some tripe about the United Front being the legitimate government. I wrote nothing about breaking "international law."

[n.c.]

-"It's called cause and effect."
If that's what my remarks mean to you I can live with it.

-"It means all."
If so then I miscommunicated.

-"you meant only the speaker?"
I meant the speaker and some zealots. If you don't want to accept that, fine.

-"You mean you won't in the future"
I mean that I didn't on this thread.

-"several people saw what you did"
For the last time, there are two statements: 1) only you saw my post as insulting, and 2) you are uniquely sensitive to my comments. The two are different. I said the latter, not the former.

-"You said I was flattering myself"
Just my opinion.

-"you saved that explanation until very recently"
Could be. I don't have the energy to check. However, my sense of you not wanting to understand what I'm saying started quite some months ago.

-"Don't speak for him please."
Can I ask you not to speak for me? Seeing as how it was our conversation I don't feel as if I went out on a limb.

-"shares your indictment."
Should I explain this again? Why? You think I was calling people inhuman. Fine. Anyone else who feels this way let me know and I'll reapeat what I've said above.

-"you actually meant to tell us you agreed"
I said that I actually do agree with much of what he said. If you don't believe that, fine.

-"unless they have insulted you first"
I will certainly try to remove all doubt as to who I'm insulting.

[Shi Huangdi]

"If the Kurds want to throw off the yoke of Turkish oppression, more power to them."

The civil war in Turkey is over, an independent Kurdistan would just re-ignite it.

"First, Pakistan has rogue elements esp in its ISI, and Saudi Arabia has rogue elements in the decadent inbreds (aka royal family)."

And the US has recently had the problem with rouge citizens supporting Bin Laden, but we aren't going to bomb ourselves, as much as you would like that.

I know Pakistan has supported the Taliban in the past, but I am not aware of them funding Anti-US fundamentalists- do you have a source to show that?

In any case, however, we have to be realists here, not set a clear etched in the sand standard we apply in every case. We attack Afghanistan because they are actively harboring Al Qaeda and protecting them. In no way can Pakistan and Saudia Arabia be compared to the Taliban in terms of culpability. Bin Laden was born a Saudi, I know he hates the Saudi regime. Next, whatever they have done in the past, they are both helping US anti-terrorist efforts, at considerable risks to the stability of their own regimes.

[Roland]

"And the US has recently had the problem with rouge citizens supporting Bin Laden, but we aren't going to bomb ourselves, as much as you would like that."

I would like that ? You're a fascinating little twit.

Pakistan's or Saudi Arabia's problems with"rouge" (or rogue?) elements is not the occasional citizen going gaga, but deeply infesting government, the media, and the state religion. Bin Laden is coming out of the Wahabbi tradition, isn't he ?

"I know Pakistan has supported the Taliban in the past, but I am not aware of them funding Anti-US fundamentalists"

No one knows what exactly Paksitan is doing. But how about funding and training (you know, "moral support") anti-Indian fundamentalists ? They can easily be turned against anything painted as anti-islamic to them.

"We attack Afghanistan because they are actively harboring Al Qaeda and protecting them."

Which I support.

"In no way can Pakistan and Saudia Arabia be compared to the Taliban in terms of culpability. Bin Laden was born a Saudi, I know he hates the Saudi regime."

Pakistan is the main sponsor of terrorism in Kashmir. The Islamist terror war there has killed thousands. That US hypocrisy in assing up to Pakistan now under the pretext of fighting terror will backfire in pissing off India mightily, no matter how much Powell tries to compensate.

"Next, whatever they have done in the past, they are both helping US anti-terrorist efforts, at considerable risks to the stability of their own regimes."

Oh, such heroes. They're between a rock and a hard place and took the less-hurting option. Don't hallucinate that you (or the west in general) enjoys any sincere sympathies there.

[Berzerker]

nc -

If that's what my remarks mean to you I can live with it.

A is A.

If so then I miscommunicated.

And when did you acknowledge this? Very recently, so your claim that this would have been over long ago if only I wanted to "understand" your mis-communication is another false claim.

I meant the speaker and some zealots. If you don't want to accept that, fine.

How can anyone accept that? YOU JUST SAID YOU MEANT ONLY THE SPEAKER! Sheesh! You're so easy Here is your first attempt to clarify the mis-communication:

Which is neither "some" nor "all."

Now you claim it applies to the speaker and some others. Make up your mind.

I mean that I didn't on this thread.

Yes you did, you complained that we took your insult as a broad indictment of all libertarians when you meant only the speaker (now revised to include all the "zealots"). Remember, you insulted the speaker for not mentioning conservation and alternative fuels. That would mean anyone who read the piece and didn't think of these things was also guilty of being narrow-minded and dogmatic - and that would include Richard Bruns who referred to your items as "irrelevant material". Now that's funny...

For the last time, there are two statements: 1) only you saw my post as insulting, and 2) you are uniquely sensitive to my comments. The two are different. I said the latter, not the former.

The latter is your attempt to read my mind. Claiming I was "uniquely sensitive" to your insults is a meaningless attempt to defend your behavior. The fact remains that at least 4 people viewed your behavior as worthy of negative comment. Just because you claim my reaction is due to a "unique sensitivity" is a meaningless statement.

Just my opinion.

Yes, even nonsensical opinions are still opinions.

Could be. I don't have the energy to check. However, my sense of you not wanting to understand what I'm saying started quite some months ago.

That doesn't excuse yet another of your false claims. And according to your last two (or three) posts, you don't even understand what you meant. You claimed you meant the insult was only for the speaker, then you revised that to include "some zealots", which kind of leaves any libertarian reading your insults in the position of wondering if they qualify for your insults since the standard is still in your mind only.

Can I ask you not to speak for me? Seeing as how it was our conversation I don't feel as if I went out on a limb.

Where did I speak for you? I just read your words. And I read your conservation with DF, where did he say the insult was meant only for him and not for others who agree with him?

Should I explain this again? Why? You think I was calling people inhuman. Fine. Anyone else who feels this way let me know and I'll reapeat what I've said above.

You said being human requires us to make any starvation in Afghanistan our business. Conversely, not agreeing with you means we are inhuman.

I said that I actually do agree with much of what he said. If you don't believe that, fine.

It's not a matter of me believing you agree with much of what he said, it's about why you didn't mention that in the same post containing your opening insults of the speaker. It's because it would have appeared ridiculous to call the man you agree with so much "narrow-minded and dogmatic" IMO.

-"unless they have insulted you first"

I will certainly try to remove all doubt as to who I'm insulting.

I didn't suggest you make sure to clearly identify who you are insulting, I said you shouldn't jump into threads to insult people before they insult you.

[n.c.]

Most of our debates, including this one, have involved you accusing me of saying and thinking things I didn't mean and do not believe. I have explained everything you have raised, often more than once. You didn't just ignore or creatively avoid these explanations, you even twisted them around. All the while taking a tone of being the final authority on the meaning of words & phrases. The most annoying part is that you accuse me of doing these very same things, and worse, frequently calling me schoolyard names.

The bottom line is that I do not care what you think about me or my statements. Clearly you have a problem with me, which must be the reason for this behavior, but that is for you to work out on your own.

You also have more time, energy and patience for this sort of debate, as mine are all tapped out. I'm sure you will take this difference as a victory of some sort, but in fact you have only succeeded in boring the hell out of me. Congratulations.

Hell, I'm so exhausted with this crap that I may blow off Apolyton for a few months again. Maybe longer. Who knows, who cares.

[Shi Huangdi]

"I would like that ? You're a fascinating little twit"

It's called a joke! Geez..............

"but deeply infesting government, the media, and the state religion."

Which is a problem for them to deal with. And now it is in there interest to do so, because now those people hate them for supporting the US in the airstrikes.

"But how about funding and training (you know, "moral support") anti-Indian fundamentalists ?"

I think they are mainly concerned with India, altough this is probably something we should discourage. Hardly rises to the level of the Taliban however.

"Pakistan is the main sponsor of terrorism in Kashmir. The Islamist terror war there has killed thousands."

Well, you know, Pakistan does have nukes, so it's probably better to be hypocritical then to take action. For now, we need Musharraf's support. Later we can put pressure on him.


Of course, so could the European Union, considering it's economic power.

"Don't hallucinate that you (or the west in general) enjoys any sincere sympathies there."

You are generally correct, altough the Saudi royals pretty much know who is propping them up.

[Roland]

"It's called a joke! Geez.............."

Sorry.

"Which is a problem for them to deal with. And now it is in there interest to do so, because now those people hate them for supporting the US in the airstrikes."

And which is the reason why the Saudis refuse to cooperate with the US on freezing funds etc.

"I think they are mainly concerned with India, altough this is probably something we should discourage. Hardly rises to the level of the Taliban however."

Pakistan supports terrorists killing thousends. Taliban support terrorists killing thousends. Difference ?

"Well, you know, Pakistan does have nukes, so it's probably better to be hypocritical then to take action."

It is the "but it's our son of a *****" foreign policy that has created all this hatred against the US in the first place. It is stupid to continue it.

"You are generally correct, altough the Saudi royals pretty much know who is propping them up."

So knows their opposition...

[Scipio Centaurus]

Originally posted by n.c.
Hell, I'm so exhausted with this crap that I may blow off Apolyton for a few months again. Maybe longer. Who knows, who cares.

Dropping bombs in forum message boards can be very exhausting. I know... I've dropped a few in my time.

Sorry to see you go. After going back over every post you've written in this thread, I still have no confidence that I know what you thought of the subject speech. So many contradictory statements... Maybe some other time?

- Scipio

[Berzerker]

nc -

Most of our debates, including this one, have involved you accusing me of saying and thinking things I didn't mean and do not believe.

Just what did you mean and just what do you believe? You repeatedly contradict yourself and then complain about your opponents "mis-understanding". And I have never jumped into a thread to announce how all people of a certain ideology are narrow-minded, dogmatic and inhuman so don't try to blame me for what happens in most of our debates. If you want civil debates, then debate with civility.

I have explained everything you have raised, often more than once.

After indicting libertarians in general, you explained how you meant only the speaker (and DF) was the target of your insults later adding that you meant all the "zealots" as well. I can't help it if you can't make up your mind.

You didn't just ignore or creatively avoid these explanations, you even twisted them around.

No, your problem is I did not ignore your so-called explanations, I responded to each showing how you were contradicting yourself. You've gone from indicting all libertarians to only the speaker to the speaker and all the zealots.

All the while taking a tone of being the final authority on the meaning of words & phrases.

Examples? Scipio also viewed your opening insult as an indirect attack on all libertarians. And how are you any different when you tell us to accept your definitions of words and phrases?

The most annoying part is that you accuse me of doing these very same things, and worse, frequently calling me schoolyard names.

I said you were an a$$hole once when you told Scipio he didn't know who the "fvck" you were.

The bottom line is that I do not care what you think about me or my statements.

Then why all the posts?

Clearly you have a problem with me, which must be the reason for this behavior, but that is for you to work out on your own.

The problem is your desire to insult libertarians. Don't try to claim I have the problem for reacting to your insults unless you are willing to admit you share the problem since you also react to insults. Even your fan Richard reacted to your insults, does he have a "problem"?

You also have more time, energy and patience for this sort of debate, as mine are all tapped out.

When did you display patience? You jumped right in attacking people and then jumped into another thread to attack "some" libertarians for reacting to your insults in this thread.

I'm sure you will take this difference as a victory of some sort, but in fact you have only succeeded in boring the hell out of me. Congratulations.

For someone so bored, you sure stayed around long enough. But what would an nc finale be without yet more insults? Btw, I don't take your departure as a victory, just the fact your arguments were shredded once again.

Hell, I'm so exhausted with this crap that I may blow off Apolyton for a few months again. Maybe longer. Who knows, who cares.

Gee, that's too bad... bye-bye...