{OT} New Orleans Vs. Iraq

The Offender · Post by **The Offender** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:51 am

computo wrote:You highlight exactly the kind of blanket racist bullshit that Michael Savage does, and I refuse to patronize his website any further, than suckered into by all your disguised links.

Its not "the muslims" who are carrying out these beheadings...it is a few select extremists who do NOT represent the whole of Islam.

They represent Muslims as a whole about as much as you represent all Americans i.e. Not at ALL.

BTW, have you EVER posted anything ableton related on this forum, Offender?

there is no power like power of denial. just keep on eating that shit sandwich served up to u.

The Offender · Post by **The Offender** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:55 am

noisetonepause wrote: Sadly, no one filmed what went on in Sabra and Shatila... we don't get to see the footage of the 'smart' bombs hitting residential areas, schools, hospitals, in Iraq now and ten years ago or in Lebanon twenty years ago... there was that one blip with the soldier shooting the insurgent who 'pretended to be dead' but it was sweeped away like a one-off. Like fuck it was.

like i said i dont disagree with everything u said, but its what u leave out of your knowledge that makes u wrong as a whole, if u want to talk about lebanon, that is a very complicated matter, one that the muslims r responsible for overall with their blood lust for power, oh and arafat annd is plo r what really kicked it into high gear.

computo · Post by **computo** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:58 am

Dude, Im not denying anything. Ive seen the videos of Nick Berg, and Daniel Lewin, among others. I force myself to watch that shit, but not to get a selfish, hatedriven, rise out of it.

Im glad you reposted your intensly asinine post, about people holding 1000 year grudges, because you really embody that mindset more than anyone. So funny. or it would be funny, if you werent such a violently dangerous psycho. If they so brutally killed my "daddy, mommy, sisters, and brothers" then how the FUCK did I get here?

"expanding your mind rather than narrowing and dumbing it down" laughable.

Are you going to answer my initial question? have you EVER made an ableton related post?

computo · Post by **computo** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:59 am

The Offender wrote:what u leave out of your knowledge that makes u wrong as a whole

Look whos talking, douchebag.

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:04 am

From dictionary.com:

Word History: The derivation of the word slave encapsulates a bit of European history and explains why the two words slaves and Slavs are so similar; they are, in fact, historically identical. The word slave first appears in English around 1290, spelled sclave. The spelling is based on Old French esclave from Medieval Latin sclavus, “Slav, slave,” first recorded around 800. Sclavus comes from Byzantine Greek sklabos (pronounced sklävs) “Slav,” which appears around 580. Sklavos approximates the Slavs' own name for themselves, the Slovnci, surviving in English Slovene and Slovenian. The spelling of English slave, closer to its original Slavic form, first appears in English in 1538. Slavs became slaves around the beginning of the ninth century when the Holy Roman Empire tried to stabilize a German-Slav frontier. By the 12th century stabilization had given way to wars of expansion and extermination that did not end until the Poles crushed the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald in 1410. ·As far as the Slavs' own self-designation goes, its meaning is, understandably, better than “slave” it comes from the Indo-European root *kleu-, whose basic meaning is “to hear” and occurs in many derivatives meaning “renown, fame.” The Slavs are thus “the famous people.” Slavic names ending in -slav incorporate the same word, such as Czech Bohu-slav, “God's fame,” Russian Msti-slav, “vengeful fame,” and Polish Stani-slaw, “famous for withstanding (enemies).”

Besides that... I'm not saying that the white man is intrinsicly devilish, no more than people of any colour. I'm saying he has been disproportiantely so over the last five hundred years.

"Us" whiteys weren't ever "neanderthal cavemen", BTW. Homo Sapiens Sapiens first replaced the European population of Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis about 50,000 years (if my memory serves me) ago. The ancestors of most of the current population of Europe have arrived in a few waves from the East over the past 10-15,000 years.

I don't feel that I'm "buying into hype", BTW. I think you'll find if you bypass the lipservice paid by most to ideals such as freedom and equality that myself, Smutek et al don't actually hold mainstream views. The majority of the people I might in this socialist paradise claim to be enlightened but actually still hold quite primitive views of the rag heads and those strange bods with dots on their foreheads that are about to steal our jobs... which neatly leads me to:

The Offender wrote:ike i said i dont disagree with everything u said, but its what u leave out of your knowledge that makes u wrong as a whole, if u want to talk about lebanon, that is a very complicated matter, one that the muslims r responsible for overall with their blood lust for power, oh and arafat annd is plo r what really kicked it into high gear.

The fundamental flaw in your argumentation is that you talk about "the muslims" as one homogenous group. This is like holding the arch bishop of Canterbury responsible for so-called Pro Life activists fire bombing abortion clinics in America. It's this sickly alzumenschliches generalisation of "the others" that was so brilliantly diagnosed by the late Professor Said. It's a sympton of a quite common (easily cured in willing patients) mental disorder, namely the inability to try to approach the observed on its own terms and not merely recreate it based on the knowledge that you, the observer, brings with you.

-Paws

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:08 am

The Offender · Post by **The Offender** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:19 am

computo wrote:Dude, Im not denying anything. Ive seen the videos of Nick Berg, and Daniel Lewin, among others. I force myself to watch that shit, but not to get a selfish, hatedriven, rise out of it.

Im glad you reposted your intensly asinine post, about people holding 1000 year grudges, because you really embody that mindset more than anyone. So funny. or it would be funny, if you werent such a violently dangerous psycho. If they so brutally killed my "daddy, mommy, sisters, and brothers" then how the FUCK did I get here?

"expanding your mind rather than narrowing and dumbing it down" laughable.

Are you going to answer my initial question? have you EVER made an ableton related post?

i never said i believe everything i write, im just trying to make some of u liberas actually have to think, an example is the usa government does not and nevr did give a shit about the poor, ive known that my whole fucking life, i know extreme rightwingism is a huge part of the social disease, but so is your extreme leftism, the fact is there is no reference point to truth in this world so we all accept our own. i truly believe not one of us r 100% correct. but im as sick as your liberal brainwashing as i am the conservatives. i can argue your points to the conservatives and b hated just as much.

idealistically we should all b brothers and sisters on this earth, and love one another and treat each other equally, but their have been too many lines drawn in the sand. humanity is one big clusterfuck of confusion. with no point of reference, "they" have divided us by color, religion, culture, and politics, therefore we can never unite and make a change for the better of the world. your liberalism is just another divider, it is not a standard like many believe it is, the same with conservatism. unfortunately, i dont think any of u will ever truly get it. what more can i say.

there is only one race, which is the human race, but the things that u both defend and oppose will never recognize that.

The Offender · Post by **The Offender** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:43 am

noisetonepause wrote:From dictionary.com:

Word History: The derivation of the word slave encapsulates a bit of European history and explains why the two words slaves and Slavs are so similar; they are, in fact, historically identical. The word slave first appears in English around 1290, spelled sclave. The spelling is based on Old French esclave from Medieval Latin sclavus, “Slav, slave,” first recorded around 800. Sclavus comes from Byzantine Greek sklabos (pronounced sklävs) “Slav,” which appears around 580. Sklavos approximates the Slavs' own name for themselves, the Slovnci, surviving in English Slovene and Slovenian. The spelling of English slave, closer to its original Slavic form, first appears in English in 1538. Slavs became slaves around the beginning of the ninth century when the Holy Roman Empire tried to stabilize a German-Slav frontier. By the 12th century stabilization had given way to wars of expansion and extermination that did not end until the Poles crushed the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald in 1410. ·As far as the Slavs' own self-designation goes, its meaning is, understandably, better than “slave” it comes from the Indo-European root *kleu-, whose basic meaning is “to hear” and occurs in many derivatives meaning “renown, fame.” The Slavs are thus “the famous people.” Slavic names ending in -slav incorporate the same word, such as Czech Bohu-slav, “God's fame,” Russian Msti-slav, “vengeful fame,” and Polish Stani-slaw, “famous for withstanding (enemies).”
Besides that... I'm not saying that the white man is intrinsicly devilish, no more than people of any colour. I'm saying he has been disproportiantely so over the last five hundred years.

"Us" whiteys weren't ever "neanderthal cavemen", BTW. Homo Sapiens Sapiens first replaced the European population of Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis about 50,000 years (if my memory serves me) ago. The ancestors of most of the current population of Europe have arrived in a few waves from the East over the past 10-15,000 years.

I don't feel that I'm "buying into hype", BTW. I think you'll find if you bypass the lipservice paid by most to ideals such as freedom and equality that myself, Smutek et al don't actually hold mainstream views. The majority of the people I might in this socialist paradise claim to be enlightened but actually still hold quite primitive views of the rag heads and those strange bods with dots on their foreheads that are about to steal our jobs... which neatly leads me to:

The Offender wrote:ike i said i dont disagree with everything u said, but its what u leave out of your knowledge that makes u wrong as a whole, if u want to talk about lebanon, that is a very complicated matter, one that the muslims r responsible for overall with their blood lust for power, oh and arafat annd is plo r what really kicked it into high gear.
The fundamental flaw in your argumentation is that you talk about "the muslims" as one homogenous group. This is like holding the arch bishop of Canterbury responsible for so-called Pro Life activists fire bombing abortion clinics in America. It's this sickly alzumenschliches generalisation of "the others" that was so brilliantly diagnosed by the late Professor Said. It's a sympton of a quite common (easily cured in willing patients) mental disorder, namely the inability to try to approach the observed on its own terms and not merely recreate it based on the knowledge that you, the observer, brings with you.

-Paws

whether i choose to believe a dictionary term is a different subject all together.

i do agree that in the past 500 years most whites have been better off than in other times, but that is only 500 years on an entires scope of thousands, other tribes had it as well, and other tribes will have it again. it has nothing to do with being devilish. while whites may not have been neandrethal caveman, the black and brown peoples societies were totally advanced culteral meccas at the time while whites were at most indigenous heathens. civilization came from africa, not europe.

as for muslims, u r right, they r not all the same, there r many good people that r muslims, but most r not, unfortunately it is the facist ones that make the policies of islam, and even persecute the good ones. the facist ones r the ones that have defined it for others, while the good ones have been victims of brainwashing and murder by their own. just think of the number of women stoned to death for not being virgins. i have studied enough islam to draw a conclusion to it for myself, the book and the words at face value r poetic and seem to have good messages (but its a shallow rip off of every other religious text, one can say the same for the bible) it is the interpretations of the sects that use it for their own political power that ruin it, and the fact that mohammed was a warlord does not help things any. the only difference between christianity and islam on a human scale is, the founder of christianity did not murder, but healed instead, and brought peace, it was the followers after that made it vulgar, islam, the founder started it with the sword, and the rest followed.

forge · Post by **forge** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 2:41 am

I've deliberately avoided this thread because of the presence of those whose main objective is to "offend"......

but reading the posts of such stalwarts as Smutek, Noisetone and Pitch Black etc has, as always been highly inspiring.

Can I remind everyone that there was a Tsunami that struck asia not even a year ago and if anything the stories that came out that I hears were mostly about co-operation and people pulling together despite the tragedy.

The good that the American "right" (meaning those that dont already think about these things properly) really needs to take from this disaster is to take a good hard look at what kind of values have lead to what's happened there.

The problem with Katrina seems to be less about the disaster itself, rather how people responded, and the response to the tsunami kind of puts it to shame. Notice how little support from how the world has been offered compared to the tsunami? I've actually heard ALOT of people here in Australia, big friends of America say "I'm glad it happened in america, maybe it'll make them wake up and look at themselves and not invade other countries...." etc

The USA is the great leader in the "me first" western culture of greed and selfishness, and it is this inability to think beyond the self on a societal level that has lead to this prevailing anarchy and misery. Now more than ever it looks from the outside as if America is completely failing as a society because it reveres the rights of theindividual more than the common good - and is also completely split - why people keep insisting on using the words "left or right wing" (can I also remind proud right wingers that in sociological circles the furthest position to the right is considered "fascism") or this incredibly infuriating neo-con buzz word "liberal" which just makes the user sound like a poorly educated thug.

But the last thing I want to do is tar all Americans with the same brush, because really the whole notion of nationalism is prety stupid really because we're all so different we cant possibly have one party poilitical speaking for all of us, but really alot more should have happened in the US to stop that evil bastard and his cronies getting re-elected, I'm sure the other guy would have done more for the people of new orleans.

LOFA · Post by **LOFA** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:16 am

Well said.

I admit that this is the only post I have read on this thread since page three, but I think I can imagine most of the rest.

One thing that we also have to keep in mind however, when comparing kumkwats and oranges, is that the tsunami came out of nowhere and killed hundreds of thousands of people, while the new orleans crisis was warned of well in advance, and the majority of people who stayed were either handicapped, poor, those with premtive criminal intent, or socially limited to the extent of not being able to coerce a means of escape. Of course there is also the portion that was completely ignorant, and or disillusioned.

What we have is a comparison of perhaps the most incredible disaster man has known for ages that is too large in scope to even imagine the corruption that undoubtedly occurred throughout it's generalized peaceful recovery with a comparably tiny incident that is under every media magnifiying glass in the world, sensationalized, and which pertains to a particular group of born and bred consumers, who just lost everything they have ever known, are scared for their lives, and most of whom are the poorest, and most uneducated of New Orleans.

It seems that any argument that draws from this comparison is ad hoc to say the least, though I do appreciate those of you non US citizens that understand the seperation of the individuals from the current, scary, indulgent, consumerist mass.

I am very upset over Louisiana's reluctance to impose marshal law and evacuate the whole area, as I am even more upset with my federal gov's inability to do the same. An unfortunately large portion of this planet's population is not prepared to defend it's own interests.

The previous past presidential elections are a good example of this.

12micsn1 · Post by **12micsn1** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:13 am

Im going to disagree with anyone who believes only a few or minority are extreme in the teaching of Islam. These are words from western influence muslims, liberals and generalists who completely whitewash the truth about peace and tolerance in the teaching of Islam. It maybe good some of us dont become vigilantes or militiamen by knowing the truth. If things were so great why did Christopher Columbus take another direction then going east an got lucky discovering the new world? Or why did some of our world's great leaders and scholars Winston Churchill, Ibn Warraq, John Quincy Adams, John Wesley have this negative view of Islam at different times in history? There are books and websites you will have to search long an hard for you all non-believers. The truth is a horribly ugly one everytime but i will give you some hard too find information since information like this is badly needed to us westerners who really dont know.

www.aina,org/books/mokk/mokk.htm#c72
A, Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Sasul Allah, Oxford university Press, 1955.
An Introduction to Islamic Law by Joseph Schcht: Oxford: Claredon press, 1982
The Dhimmi: Jews and Christian Under Islam (1985)
The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude(1996)
Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide
Islamikaze: Manifestations of islamic martyrology by rapheal Israeli; London frank Cass Publishers, 2003
Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from 7th to the 21st centuries by Paul Fregosi: New York; Prometheus Books, 1998
The New Concise History of the crusades by Thomas F. madden: Lanham, MD: Rowman & leftfield, 2005
The Crusades: The World dabate by Hilaire belloc: 1937, republished by tan Books, 1992
Hatreds kingdom by Dore Gold, DC: Regnery, 2003
The raft of Mohammed by Jean-Pierre Peroncel-Hugoz; St.paul, MN; Paragon House, 1988
23 years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, by 'Ali Dashti; Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 1994
Infiltration: How muslim Spies and Subversives have penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry; nashville, TN: Nelson Current, 2005
Voices by Behind the veil: The World of islam through the Eyes of Women, edited by Ergun Mehmet Caner; Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004
The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West, by Toby E. Huff

milfbait · Post by **milfbait** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:53 am

forge wrote:
But the last thing I want to do is tar all Americans with the same brush, because really the whole notion of nationalism is prety stupid really because we're all so different we cant possibly have one party poilitical speaking for all of us, but really alot more should have happened in the US to stop that evil bastard and his cronies getting re-elected, I'm sure the other guy would have done more for the people of new orleans.

The sad thing is poor black people don't vote republican, so most of the victims of this disaster didn't help bush get elected. That may be one reason for the slow response. I am 100% certain John Kerry would have been a man and been there working, getting help for these poor bastards, not laying around at some redneck farmhouse. But Bush was doing just that, dodging a lady who would like to know why her son died for his country, but he wouldn't meet with here because he is a lying coward. Man, if his approval rating is over 1% I would be suprised. Anyone still supporting that dirty piece of shit should just do the world a favor and jump off a bridge.

montrealbreaks · Post by **montrealbreaks** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:06 am

12micsn1 wrote:Im going to disagree with anyone who believes only a few or minority are extreme in the teaching of Islam.

As an Anglophone Canadian, I was unemployed when I first arrived in Montreal, and went to an adult education school here ot learn French at the provincial government's expense. The school was about 75% immigrants, 20% Anglophones from Canada, and 5% Francophones who had literacy problems.

While there, I met Algerians, Indonesians, Moroccans, Saudis, Iraqis, Yemenis, Palestinians, Sudanese, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and a few other muslims. All in all, about 40-50% of the school was islamic. I spent 8 months there and got to know them quite well. While there, we had to discuss things all the time (it was CONVERSATIONAL French after all). So, what do we talk about when you get a bunch of people from different cultures together?

Their cultural differences. For 30 hours a week for 8 months, I essentially interviewed groups of muslims, discussing their cultures.

My impression after all this?

Islam as a religion is inheirently intolerant, exclusive and violent. I reject the inevitable accusation that I am prejudiced - I made my judgement only after long exposure to the subject. Not all muslims are like this here in Canada - in fact, most who come here wanted to get the hell away from their theocratically insane countries. In fact, I wrote a letter to the minister of immigration on behalf of a palestinian dude who just wanted to get the fuck away from all the idiocy that was going on back where he came from. But, as written, there is a LOT of moral justificaiton for violence, exclusion, discrimination and injustice in Islam.

When Christians, or Liberal Democrats, or even socialists abuse power, engage in violence, or do what I would call "evil", it is in contravention of their own doctrine. I believe that when a muslim does the same, it is sanctioned by their doctrine.

Remember; Budda was a pacifist. Christ was a pacifist. Muhammed was a conquerer.

montrealbreaks · Post by **montrealbreaks** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:20 am

noisetonepause wrote: Ah yes. The white man is not the devil. He is innocent. Right.

I assume that's sarcastic. If it's not, then we're in agreement and I ask that you disregard my post below.

If it is sarcastic, I take issue with it. I am caucasian, yet I am innocent, and I have done harm to no-one. Don't dare try to paint me with the "white devil man" stigma. I take no responsibility for anything that happened before my birth in 1973. NONE. From that point on, I take no responsibility for any injustices that I personally had nothing to do with.

The only reason the injustices of the "white man" are percieved as so grevious is because historically Europeans simply fared better at expansionism than the Chinese or South Asians or other ethno-cultural groups. It's not for lack of trying on the parts of the "oppressed" peoples on the globe - every society has all tried their hand at dominating other societies. Given equal capability, EVERY culture enters an expansionist period. European expansion just happend to coincide with technological development. This coincidence of history should not damn the people of European descent today

By the same logic, most of the men who caused those problems in history were under 6' tall. Perhaps you should be blaming short people for history's ills?

How does this jive with my post above about the nature of Islam? Well, while every society oppresses people in some way, at least Liberal Democracies ASPIRE to egalitarianism and peaceful coexistance as a good thing. It gives us something to work towards, even if we haven't reached that goal yet. When a society (like Islam) doesn't have a moral obligation to reject the natural societal urge to oppress, there is no positive goal to reach towards - only a continuing downward spiral of violence, ignorance and injustice.

amo · Post by **amo** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:05 am

Hey breaks, you lost it or something ? Or maybe you didn't get enough sleep ????
Sorry for being sarcastic here, I don't mean to be harsh but ! I've read your posts before I left to my job, now I'm arrived and I had time to think.....

First, why opposing islam and white ? Isn't islam a religion ? isn't white a (incorrect) shade of skin color ? Aren't Turkish quite white ? Aren't carabean quite black ???? Aren't south Italians quite dark... close to Indians or arabs ?

Do you think that because you met a bunch of idiotic people coming to Montreal from islamic cultures, all islam is to trash ? Do you think that because you don't feel guilty and most of your friends are cool and from catholic backgroud, christianism does no harm to the world ?

Hello, but here's how I would re-state things to be clear with every one: The myth of the book, be it jew, christian or muslim, is a myth, and great nasty political achievements have taken place in the name of that myth, and takes place, and will take place. That's sad, but that's it. Don't be mislead by the myth in any way around.

The statement "Ah yes. The white man is not the devil. He is innocent. Right." was not addressed to that "I" you're talking about. That "I" can take all good on him, it won't change history. Human history. Humans kill, undermine, manipulate each other, from long before, and still for a long time I fear. So please let's not forget that. One doesn't have to FEEL guikty but probably has to make sure he remembers every bit of hidtory, be it pleasant or not.

What do you think if you were in the presence of the entourage of M. Bush and his most religious friends, what would you say about christianity ?
You know, I travelled often with orthodox jews. I talked a bunch with them, out of curiosity, and often was amazed and digusted by their statements, but not always. That gives me no clue on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, nor gives me anything on the profound meaning of being jewish. Nor ewplains me why all that shit happens during world war 2.

Jesus was a pacifist ? hu, seing how many horrors are or have been done in his name, I would rather not prononce his name, let him be at peace, poor man.

People are endoctrined. We all are to some extend. Muslims from many countries are in a great manner. But christian and jews too.

And please think a bit before stating that "Liberal Democracies ASPIRE to egalitarianism and peaceful coexistance as a good thing". You do, I do, but I'm really sure my country, at least until today - as the gouvernement, business people, deciding people - are really well aware of the conflicts they created and create, the poverty they're entertaining, are really concious of their power and how to sustain it. It LOOKS better, it is beautifull on the paper, but hell, rare are the countries that actually ASPIRE to egalitarianism and peaceful coexistance as a good thing. They exist, but are not the powerfull ones, like say USA, France, UK and so on.

Sorry It is not just for you breaks but you looked like a reasonable person to me and your statements made me react. I may not be that clear as english is not my mother tongue (you've guessed that....), just felt like sharing a bit of prospective here.....

Kind regards,
amo