The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Power makes men mad > Comments

Power makes men mad : Comments

By Patrick Seale, published 31/5/2006

Military might has fostered a climate of fear and paranoia in the world’s most dominant states.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
America and Israel might have all the firepower, but it is not other nations they are fighting: it is stateless terrorism and fundamental Islam. It is these “weak” sources of danger that are causing all the problems, with few modern weapons and very little back up, even from rogue states who know that they will be hit by the USA for openly aiding terrorism.

“…they (the US and Israel) go about stoking the fires of anger and hate…”. Complete nonsense! They are defending themselves (in Israel’s case) and the Western world in the case of America. As for their “violently hostile approach to the Islamic Republic of Iran..”, what could be more hostile than that country’s maniacal president vowing to wipe Israel of the map? And Hamas was and still is a terrorist organization – elected government or not.

And, of course, Palestinians are totally blameless with their “few harmless home-made rockets”!

Even the useless and cowardly European Union is on the wrong side, according to this “British writer and consultant”. The dill also wants the “mayhem” caused by the US and Israel replaced with: “Dialogue and diplomacy, mutual accommodation, the search for a balance of power, the mediation of international institutions..”.

More nonsense. When have the maniacs threatening the Western world and Israel ever been amenable to dialogue? Never. It is their way or death for all those opposing them.

The only problem with the power wielded by America is that it also protects people like Patrick Seale.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 11:10:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just another apologist for terrorists. When has Israel ever threatened Iran? It is Iran who appears determiend to destroy Israel (not to mention the Palestinians and the million Arabs in Israel and the Islamic sacred sites in Jerusalem that will be collatoral damage.

As for Hamas, their stated aim is the destruction of the Jewish State and all the Jews within it. The Palestinians can elect who they want, that is their right, but if they choose to elect a terrorist organisation then they have to live with the consequences.

I note your aside about a few harmless rockets being fired into Israel. Would you feel the same way if an organisation bent on your destruction started firing home made rockets into your suburb? Of course not, you hypocrite!
Posted by jeremy29, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 11:14:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,

Please open your mind and look at this from a different perspective, this so called 'stateless terroism' is a grossly exaggerated threat, think about the amount of people in the west who are killed by terrorists and compare it to how many are killed by car accidents or cancer.

It is in the interests of western states to exaggerate the threat of terrorism in order to wage war in the middle east for geopolitical purposes and restrict our civil liberites at home.

Until people like yourself recognise the real threat to our democracy, perpetual war is a probability.
Posted by Carl, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 11:41:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Leigh.

Dr Seale must throw off his easy academic assumptions. Evil in the world can and does occur without the US and its ally Israel. The US usually reacts to areas of instability rather than causing the instability.

The US and Israel did not ask the President of Iran to make public threats about Israel’s existence.

Few Iranians would deny that the development of nuclear weapons is an likely Iranian goal. All other nuclear weapons states in the region (India, Pakistan and Israel) originally began with a "peaceful" nuclear program. Ownership of such weapons is a point of popular pride in those countries. The same feeling is emerging in Iran.

While Israel is usually considered the target of Iran's future nuclear weapons I think it’s the weaker Muslim states around Iran that should be concerned (this includes Iraq and Saudi Arabia).

A resurgent Iranian military, which holds nuclear weapons, could coerce neighboring countries into numerous geographical and economic concessions. For example Iran has long coveted the port of Basra and the oil fields around it. The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s was in part fought to possess this area. Then the defence forces of Iran and Iraq were almost even but now the Iraqi army is extremely weak and could not resist Iranian threats or incursions (without US assistance).

So I believe Iran is building up a nuclear capability to dominate its Muslim neighbors. Threats against Israel are a diversion, but a dangerous one at that.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 11:46:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Searle has his blinkers on.

There is a bigger picture here that he is not seeing.

Not only does a country need to protect their position by stopping others from encroaching on their position (at the top of the tree), they need to strategically eliminate the potential for threat by using facades and scapegoats to warrant military action.

The potential for profit is huge in any conflict, both for weapons manufacurers (guess who owns them), contracting companies which come in after the conflict, resources access (e.g Oil) and organisational structure for government which allows the invaded country to turn into an ally within only a few short months.

There are long term threats that Dr Searle is not seeing. this is not just about being afraid or paranoid, every country that becomes the number 1 in military might never stays there and the US wants to learn form those mistakes and hold the mantle for the good of thier people.

You call it fear and paranoia, many call it insight and homeland security.
Posted by Realist, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 12:14:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The violence and war in the world is mainly a male thing. There are few warlike states in history with female leaders. Few female army chiefs. Few terrorist organisations headed by women. Few women among the machete wielding gangs in Timor. Few drunken women among those terrorising some remote aboriginal communities. Pictures of war and terror are dominated by women and children fleeing male-inflicted violence.

I'm a male, but I can't understand it. What's going on here, guys?
Posted by PK, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 12:52:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
we are products of our environment, upbringing and our personal ambition.

Dont blame men for the worlds problems, we have physical and psychological differences, we each assume roles just like every other animal on earth, and we have been the protectors and agressors since the dawn of man.

that is silly PK, but i dont mind at all if all heads of state where female, but remember we are meant to compliment eachother.
Posted by Realist, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 2:24:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a pleasure to read someone who is neither "with" nor "against" any of the frightened participants in this military/security global madness, but, on the contrary, is brave enough to support peaceful international dispute resolution. As Seale no doubt is already aware, all committed "sides" will now be united against him in their rejection of his analysis. As the warmonger-in-chief has said - "if you are not with us, you are against us". barbh.
Posted by barb h, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 2:24:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PK...'Whats going on' ? good grief mate.... u need to get out more and into some libraries and read some history, look up err.. ok..'Assyrians' and see what has happened to them over the past 2000 yrs. http://www.aina.org/martyr.html

The 'male thing' you refer to is simply the law of the jungle. Males are strong, males defend, males take and defend territory.

The simple facts of life are that females are weaker, would not stand a chance in combat with males,
male lions= Bigger, stronger
Male Kangaroos= Bigger, stronger
Male Buffaloes= Bigger stronger...

and surprise surprise, they all ..... defend territory, and take it.

Why do you even ask that question ?

The power of the dominant states, is being used to KEEP them dominant, because if they had a moment of weakness, ANOTHER state would take their place... like the old buck roo, always being tested by the young bucks and one day, he gets so weak he is conciled to the social outer limits, the poor grazing areas, and definitely no sex :)

Welcome to life.

But, having said that... there is....another way. Think about Jesus.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 1 June 2006 8:03:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, BOAZ-David, but you post does not begin to answer my question. Cut the 'law of the jungle' crap. This is the 21st century in case you hadn't noticed. Men's urges towards violence are supposed to be controlled by a respect for the value of human life and an acknowledgement that only peace can lead to safety and prosperity. You are always trumpeting your Christian beliefs on this site. This is surely one time when you would have taken proper lessons from that, not just the glib 'think about Jesus' at the end of your 'well, that's life' diatribe.

And Realist, you are hiding from the truth as well with your 'don't blame men' line. I would hardly call that realistic. Read my post from yesterday again. Can you deny the truth of it? It IS a male thing, there is no escaping it.
Posted by PK, Thursday, 1 June 2006 8:30:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PK,

What you don't realise is that we may live in the space age, but we all have stone age brains. This situation is not going to change any millennium soon.

As far as warlike female leaders is concerned, I think that Margaret Thatcher managed to do a thorough job on General Galtieri of Argentina during the Falklands War that would have put any of her previous male predecessors to shame. She did a pretty good job on the striking coal miners as well. So much for female leaders being non-violent.
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 1 June 2006 8:44:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Plersdus, I was aware of Thatcher's history when I wrote my first post. Also Golda Meir of Israel, Indira Ghandi of India, Catherine The Great and Jean D'Arc. There may even be a few other exceptions that prove the rule. That's why I said there are FEW female leaders of warlike states.

The 'stoneage mentality' is just another copout like Boaz-David's 'law of the jungle'. I am not as pessimistic as you.
Posted by PK, Thursday, 1 June 2006 12:57:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PK... I was not 'copping out' I was merely observing reality.

Your plea to think of our modern condition where we are "supposed" to be guided by a respect for human life... well.. its just plain optimistic in a kind of "gee I wish" type of thing.

It seems to me that your longing for the 'respect for human life' value is based and founded on the relative peace and security we have enjoyed since Vietnam. How long ago was that ? hmmm yep.. around 30 yrs. Not exactly a period out of the ordinary where peace has reigned. Its more a punctuation mark in the struggle for resources by competing humans.

Look at East Timur.. do you class these people as 'savages' needing to be enlightened by the UN declaration on human rights, or the latest Humanist buzz words ? Don't u know, or realize that if we had a similarly proportioned population, with various ethnic groups, and religions, we would be exactly the same as they are. Fighting it out in the political arena and if that doesn't work, in the streets.

Not that such is my cup of tea, but it is the sad reality of life AND human nature (except you of course.. ur nice :)

My parting comment about 'Think of Jesus' was deeper than you apparently tweaked to. Our peacefulness is in my opinion based on the value of human life inherited FROM His teaching. "The meek shall inherit the earth.. blessed are the peacemakers" etc etc.
Paul said "As far as it depends on you, live at peace with all men"

James says "1What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? 2You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. 3When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures"

That sums up East Timor, and the world.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 1 June 2006 1:18:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stateless terrorism is an excuse to attack soveriegn state.

Fundamental Islam is Islam hijacked to justify terrorism and fascism.

Installing Democracy is invasion to secure oil.

Western Christianity has been hijacked to justify racism, cultural supremacism, invasion of sovereign states and fascism.

Terrorism is living in a soveriegn state that the US is invading (to secure oil and establish a launching pad to attack other Arab states(to secure oil and impose democracy).

Prowling US car parks, colleges to sucker 18 year-old as meat for murdering is predatory and Bush's crime against his own people. The US government has, according to Anti-Flag, accessed the student's results and targetted the students who are not performing. Low.

Boaz. Think about Jesus. Well duh! The most violent he got was tipping a few tables. The market place thing. He never advocated terrorism or warfare. He never invaded or fought over territory. He wasn't physically big or strong and didn't form an army to impose His will. He gathered honourable men together and engaged in stateless listening, kindness and teaching.

From Salamn Rushdies Satanic Verses:

"Any new idea, Mahound, is asked two questions:

The first is asked when it is weak: WHAT KIND OF AN IDEA ARE YOU?
Are you the kind that compromises, does deals, accommadates itself to society, aims to find a niche, to survive; or are you the cussed, bloody-minded, ramrod backed type of damnfool notion that would rather break than sway with the breeze? - The kind that will almost ceertainly, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, be smashed to bits; but the hundreth time, will change the world."

"What's the second question?" Gibreel asked aloud.

"Answer the first."
END.
Jesus' "idea" of the True way was not couched in violence and physical strength.

Boaz:
Ephesians Chapter 1, Verse 18.
Posted by rancitas, Thursday, 1 June 2006 2:24:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Allo allo alloooo .... SOMEone has been reading his Bible :) fantastic !

"18I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19and his incomparably great power for us who believe."

Ranc.. and my prayer for you and all here...is that all will (if not already) know that same hope ...

You are quite right.. that is an appropriate verse for me and for all of us. Our eyes are continually being 'scaled over' by the old flesh, and constantly need the refreshing eye surgery from Dr Jesus.

But think about the rest that Paul said..

-"The Glorious Inheritance"
-"The HOPE to which He has called us".

Yes.. amen and amen ! When mankind- communities, migrants, assylum seekers, indigenous people, white settlers come to know that inheritance, to know that Lord, there will not be any need for me referring to any other 'framework' than that of the Kingdom of God.

The only thing left will be to 'stir one another up to good works' in Christ.

But as it was in our Lords earthly days, so it is now, there is an Emporer, (the state) and there are threats, and it is the work of the State to maintain harmony and safety. Just as Caesar did many things which were ungodly, and hurtful to the embryonic fellowship of the saints, so those like Bush and Blair and others will make their own kinds of mistakes.

Nations and tribes will be warring, struggling yet in the midst of all this, we can have a glorious peace at an individual and group fellowship level. Only in Christ do the points of difference, culture, race, language etc become dim enough for people to become a new humanity who's citizenship is in heaven.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 2 June 2006 8:18:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD I can't let your latest piece of hypocrisy go by.

You state "Only in Christ do the points of difference, culture, race, language etc become dim enough for people to become a new humanity who's citizenship is in heaven."

So just when are YOU going to start practising christianity? Maybe you could make a start by ceasing from vilifying Muslims? Ask yourself, would JC have called Islam evil the way you do?

BTW Your understanding of JC's teachings are only exceeded by your lack of knowledge about biology. There are plenty of examples where females are either equal to (wolf packs) or stronger than males (hyenas). As for the insect kingdom - chicks rule. Your tendency to generalise frequently undermines any modicum of credibility your posts may hold.

However, for a start I would respect you a little more if you actually practised what you preached to the rest of us.

As for topic - we live in a climate of artificially generated fear - an example of that is the fear mongering of ALL muslims that is swallowed by the gullible such as Boaz David.

Men (generally speaking) respond to real or percieved agression more violently than women - but that is hardly set in concrete. After all, women haven't had much in the way of power to wield it either for peace or war. Quite frankly, I believe that the more active in public life women become the more likely they will exhibit aggression just as much as men.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 2 June 2006 9:55:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, I agree with your post. Perhaps women, if given more leadership opportunities, will exhibit a similar level of warlike tendencies as shown in the history of male leadership. If so, that may be because women will have to play by male-dominated rules. We are a very long way off seeing a genuine gender balance within power structures that would give us an opportunity to analyse that. For the moment though, war and violence is a male thing.

Thanks for putting B-D right. He is so tiresome I can no longer be bothered with any detailed response to his glib preaching.
Posted by PK, Friday, 2 June 2006 10:24:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well well... welcome back Scout, haven't seen u for a bit.
PK.. in good form also :)

Actually, my post was mainly to Rancitas.

But you speak of hypocrisy Scout. Am I Robinson Crusoe there ? Do you ever express sentiments but fall short of them yourself ? No need to answer :)

On the males females thing.. that is so silly to try to put forward a position for female physical dominance I won't bother trying to defend my previous remarks. (bugs ? *shakes head*)

You keep on missing the point, and somehow finding a Jesus who fits your desire to 'beat me up with', rather than the one in Scripture.
While you are quite rightfully making negative comparisons between myself and the Lord, please try to understand that He did actually criticize and berate certain classes of people. Those he most seriously berated were they who where leading people astray from true faith in God, by their human constructions. (Pharisees,Scribes, Saducees) and those who used the Law for manipulation and profit from the less learned (Lawyers).

Then, there were a few towns where He had clearly demonstrated His own Kingly/Messianic credentials (such as most on OLO could only wish for) yet they persisted stubbornly in their unbelief.

"If the works done in your had been done in Sodom, they would have repented" is about as heavy and from the hip as it gets.

You were a bit off the mark in claiming I 'Vilify Muslims' unless you mean by that, that I am vilifying them as a class, by exposing the falsehood and carnality in the fundamental history of its prophet ?

I see it differently. Awareness of falsehood is the first step toward truth ..no ?

I hope both you and PK will devote as much attention to discovering the real Jesus as Rancitas has clearly shown in his finding a verse he feels I would benefit from (as indeed I did).
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 2 June 2006 2:24:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD - I sincerely hope you manage to actually live the faith you continually ram down our throats on this forum (Not good enough to say you make mistakes - surely OLO is an opportunity to lead by example?

I note also you fail to comment on what JC would preach about Islam.

Another biological fact for BD - On physical strength - women have greater endurance, men greater immediate strength. This is subject to exceptions and what the f*ck does it prove anyway? Women have as much right as men to participate in ALL areas of our world.

Suggest male supremists like yourself are simply easily threatened by women. On that thought you appear to be easily threatened by Muslims, homosexuals, atheists, agnostics, science, philosophy, all other religions except your spurious version of christianity.... oh the list goes on. Ever thought of seeking some pyschological assistance with these fears? Oh, right, you're scared of psychologists too.

:-(
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 3 June 2006 8:51:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The claim that there is no other country with the military fire power of the USA is larrrrrfable, beyond belief. That premise alone puts this article in the bin.

Of course, Russia, dont have any military power. They have carefully contrustucted very useful propoganda to affect that illusion. To paraphrase the art of war "cultivate the perception that you are weak in the mind of an opponent." That way, they underestimate and leave you alone, free to fly under the radar and go much further than if under their watchful eye.

For heavens sake get a grip. Apart from the extensive technical know how of the Russians, they could merely, with the strike of a pen, refuse to accept US$ for their oil (they have more than iran, iraq and venezuala, combined) and instead take say Euros, and the US dollar's defacto reserve currency status (on the back of oil and commodities in general) would crumble over night. That, would collapse the illusion of USA as a the 'leading' super power faster than a bunch of split atoms over Washington.

Isreal and USA are each others lap dogs. Their 'power' is in fact a hall of funny mirrors. Spend long enuff in that circus tent and the distorted perception starts to look normal.

Massive changes are coming. May take several generations to play out, but they are baying at the door and no amount of spin will change the path we are on. China will not sit around for ever funding the debt laden US economy. USA has been issuing their worthless chits for a long time know and thankfully for their debt driven consumer junkies, the rest of the world has been passing those bumb cheques around and never cashing them.

Writing is on the wall. Open an eye and read it.
Posted by trade215, Saturday, 3 June 2006 3:31:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Scout
thanx for your concern over my welfare.

On the physical strength aspect.. females have more endurance..I quite agree. The point about the male having more immediate strength is clear.. protection and preservation of the group.

Because of this, I don't agree that females have the 'right' to be in front line combat positions. (the gender mixing aspect aside).
Even if they had the 'right' it would be stratetically foolhardy to put them there. (non direct combat roles are ok).

How would Jesus preach about Islam ? good point !
I tried to address that with reference to how he dealt with 'falsehood'. (Pharisees etc).

The Lord Jesus, and Paul had different approaches to falsehood. Paul was scathing of doctrinal falsehood, yet he spoke very discreetly to the Greeks "The god you say is 'unknown', Him I proclaim to you"
Of the Circumcision party he described them as 'dogs'.

Jesus Himself came to demonstrate his credentials as "Messiah" it was enough for him to heal,preach, do signs. He is now the reference point for assessing falsehood and truth in the Spiritual realm and regarding our eternal destinies.

Take care.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 4 June 2006 9:42:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD the fact that you equate Islam with 'falsehood' says it all. Your stance is both hypocritical and ignorant. It is not as you claim "I'm not perfect" this is a weak excuse to use when your objective is clearly and demonstrably then denigration of any belief system that does not concur with yours.

As for combat, police work etc there are women who are brilliant at these occupations - they are not for all women, but then these jobs are not for all men either. In my work as a housing officer I have witnessed a police woman bail up four drug dealers effortlessly. You would deny the contribution that women have to make to our world purely because of your patriachal views.

I know that anything I or others have to say will not stop you from fostering a climate of fear and paranoia.

JC taught love YOU teach fear.
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 4 June 2006 11:48:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout... my beliefs about women and combat are well founded.

Here is an excerpt from a law document examining the development of the concept of Self Defense law.
Referring to early England.

"In these early times there was no State interference by an imposed body of criminal law. This came about only gradually as strong men imposed their will on various communities, and gained their support by bringing a semblance of order into what was a fairly chaotic situation, 8]"

Note the phrase "as strong men imposed their will"......

I suggest your opposition to this, and your quoting of the 'exceptions' which justify the rule is evidence of a dogmatic position yourself.

I've seen female police being pushed and shoved in crowd control situations where clearly the issue of 'core strength' is THE issue.

I don't know why you even try to defend this very natural situation of man/womankind.

Jesus preached 2 fundamental ideas

1/ Repentance
2/ Faith

because.... "The kingdom of heaven is at hand"

He did indeed preach love, as part of the ethics of the Kingdom.
The ultimate "Love your enemies" is portrayed in Pauls words: "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8)

Scout, I don't find it hard to understand your view about my position in respect of 'Falsehood'. But you don't seem to make much effort to grapple with the issue yourself. I speak from a framework of belief in 'Truth' as found in Christ. You seem to be of the view that:
- 'Its all relative,
-it doesn't matter,
-all paths lead to the same destination.

This is ok as far as it goes, but in reality you are trying just as hard to impose your view on me as I am on you :)

There is a difference between rejecting falsehood and rejecting people.

When I speak truthfully from my clearly expressed convictions, you then condemn me for 'vilifying/denigrating' Muslims and others, and in so doing, you commit the very same thing towards myself.

Its all good. Truth doesn't come cheap, let the struggle continue.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 4 June 2006 2:46:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I attended a peace conference last week and witnessed US activist, Cindy Sheehan, one of the most inspiring people in the western world in these biblical times. Yes, she is committed to the peace of Jesus. She quoted another woman: her adversary, Condalisa Rice, who said once "Sometimes, you just have to bomb people".

Then George W Bush proclaimed: "I think I will have to start speaking intellectual". Indeed.

Let's look at some real agents for Jesus. Martin Luther King Jr. was one: "If we can't change Governments and corporations, then we can only change ourselves". This inspired Rosa Parkes to sit in the white section of a bus, and the rest was history.

The Christians in the peace conference were the most active in their actions against the war in Iraq. For example, the Christians Against All Terrorism. They risked their lives in the name of peace and Jesus. They demonstrated at Pine Gap, breached national security, and took illegal photographs of secret sections of the military base. They were caught, charged, and could face 7 years in jail in a court case due in Alice Springs next August.

War promoters in the established Church think that Jesus is on their side. They are wrong. He is not on the side of the US empire, or any war in the name of greed, lies, theft of oil, vengence and pure malice.

The rest of you don't have the guts to make a stand for Jesus in peace against something that is wrong. If you hide in the dark, then you are part of the darkness. If you do this in the name of Jesus, then you are worse than Judas. You have no right to call yourself a Christian.

I don't call myself Christian. I humble myself without any aires or graces, as this is an endulgence. BTW, my tag: saintfletcher is an ironic in reference to my Street.

But I respect those who demonstrate that they live like Jesus would live, and do what Jesus would do. I end asking one simple question. Who would Jesus bomb?
Posted by saintfletcher, Sunday, 4 June 2006 6:15:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you saintfletcher for bringing a bit of perspective to the 'debate'. Boaz-David, in your last few posts in this string, you are sinking to new depths in your mad crusade. You are fast becoming a self-parody. One thing OLO does not need is a frequent poster who is too mad and obsessed to engage in debate. Watch that you don't get to that point. Temper your posts with a few moments of reflection.
Posted by PK, Sunday, 4 June 2006 10:45:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD you are mistaking criticism for denigration. I criticise you for your patriarchal stance, your constant vilification of Muslims and your hypocritical quoting of the bible while never applying JC’s wise words to yourself on this forum.

You denigrate by calling people liars or evil. You denigrate by searching the internet for every bad thing you can find attributable to Muslims. Anyone can do the same and find appalling behaviour by christians - and that would also be denigration.

When you claim ‘falsehood’ in relation to Islam, you apparently lack the wit to know that the Koran shares the same roots as the bible – both have their foundation in the old testament. Are you claiming that the bible is false also? Logic would indicate that that is what you are saying even though you are oblivious to this.

Again I state: Jesus promoted love, you foster fear.
Posted by Scout, Monday, 5 June 2006 11:15:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1

"What's going on here guys?" asks PK after stating an argument of sweeping generalisation referring to history and his perceived violence of men. An argument well off topic, despite the sexist intonation of the title. Perhaps PK only read the title and not the article, which never even hinted at any sexist generalisations of that kind.

Then we have 3 reasoned responses to PK's question by Realist, Boaz_David and plerdsus, but PK was not persuaded by their arguments. Nope. He says of them, respectively, "you are hiding from the truth"; "you [sic] post does not begin to answer my question" and; "just another copout". It is clear that PK is interested in one answer and only one answer here - men as a class are violent oppressors. Later he makes this point, "We are a very long way off seeing a genuine gender balance within power structures that would give us an opportunity to analyse that. For the moment though, war and violence is a male thing".

So, one might ask, why did he ask the question when he already knew the answer? Was he really interested in what other people thought? He certainly dismissed other people's views very promptly.

However, he found agreement with Scout. "Scout, I agree with your post," he said.

And PK went on. "Perhaps women, if given more leadership opportunities, will exhibit a similar level of warlike tendencies as shown in the history of male leadership. If so, that may be because women will have to play by male-dominated rules." Here again, PK makes the assertion that women as an oppressed underclass will be forced to comply with the rules of men's oppressing overclass.

Having made the point and having established an ally in Scout, both PK and Scout then proceed to denigrate Boaz_David with personal slights relating to the state of his sanity.

Continued...
Posted by Maximus, Monday, 5 June 2006 1:01:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

Scout said to Boaz_David, "Ever thought of seeking some pyschological [sic] assistance with these fears? Oh, right, you're scared of psychologists too."

PK said, "Boaz-David, in your last few posts in this string, you are sinking to new depths in your mad crusade. You are fast becoming a self-parody. One thing OLO does not need is a frequent poster who is too mad and obsessed to engage in debate." This despite the fact that Boaz_David has engaged competently in debate on a vast number of topics over time.

It is interesting to note how this little dance took place. First pose a question to which the answer is already known. Sort correct and wrong answers to establish friend from foe. Next make personal attacks against those who don't agree with you and slander their sanity.

This technique has a long and sordid history and gives new meaning to the paragraph quoted from this very article "Power makes men mad" - "Instead of putting their formidable power to work reducing tensions and resolving conflicts - as they should be doing - they go about stoking the fires of anger and hate, apparently unaware that the destabilisation they cause must in due course engulf them too." And so too, just as presented here on this page of comments by PK and Scout, Dr Patrick Seale in his article appears to be conducting an example of the same simple, old-fashioned kettle and pot calling.
Posted by Maximus, Monday, 5 June 2006 1:01:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
saintfletcher, you made some excellent points.

As well demonstrating passionate intolerance of others with different beliefs, the “Ku-Klux-Khristians” more frequently argue among themselves. If it’s not white it must be black – no shades of grey are permitted in their bitter, narrow view of the world.

They are no different from Jewish and Muslim zealots - they just have different marketing strategies.

Yesterday I saw photos of a distraught man in the Middle East collecting his son's body from the road - with a shovel. Does it really matter what the nationality or religion of this man is?

I don’t know who Jesus would bomb but He obviously wants you to be rich and have lots of lovely oil and doesn’t care how you get it.

This (very good) article clearly shows the effect of religious fundamentalism on world politics - on both sides.

In these cases there can never be an mutually acceptable solution, or even a truce.

Even the worst periods of the Cold War were far less threatening than the growing madness we face today.
Posted by rache, Monday, 5 June 2006 2:07:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus, your very lengthy two posts can be summarised as "I agree with Boaz-David, and I do not agree with PK and Scout" but without much substance of your own. Dumping on Scout and me from a position of appearing to be above the fray hasn't worked I am afraid, as all you have really done is recount the thread from your biased standpoint. I think you can assume that most visitors can read and interpret for themselves.

This is a site where some strong views are exchanged, and if it sometimes seems to get personal, the anonymity should be a buffer against any offence being taken. Long term posters like B-D can look after themselves, you needn't be concerned. And, your faith in the soundness of B-D's stream of evangelical posts over many months has been misplaced. Time and again, he has been bested by many other contributors to the site. That is probably not surprising when you consider that B-D approaches every topic with the old 'Jesus saves' line, full of Bible quotes. Scout's posts about B-D's contributions to this string nailed him quite well. Your two verbose posts have quite failed to undo that. But if you are a like mind to B-D, you obviously won't see it that way.
Posted by PK, Monday, 5 June 2006 2:51:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trade215,

Reading the posts following your interpretation of world events illustrates your central point - the big picture goes rumbling on while people bicker among themselves over things that don't amount to a hill of beans by comparison.

It has been suggested that Saddam Hussain's announced intention to trade oil in Euros was the last straw. Interesting times ahead.
Posted by chainsmoker, Monday, 5 June 2006 3:22:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max... u captured the direction of the 'dance' very well mate..
and for PK and Scouts benefit, I did not detect an iota of 'I agree with B-D' in Max's post. He was simply pointing out the differences in approach, and rightly so. Max could have said all he said and been in complete disagreement with my position.

PK.. nailed ? :) hardly mate. disagreed with.. yep..I'll cop that one.

Rache.. you are clearly a kind hearted person. Beware of falling into the 'mindless bleeding heart' condition. I say 'mindless' not in a derogatory way, but in the sense that you are allowing extremely brutal and traumatic events to cloud the big picture.

In regard to Iraq, it is abundantly clear that there are forces at work which will stop at NOTHING in terms of brutality and cruelty and inhuman behavior 'just' to get their way, and I'm referring to those behind the suicide bombings, which slaughter so many every day Iraqi's. When you see a man scooping up the remains of his son, it does matter very much 'who' was responsible and why.

The question which should be asked is this:

"Who's interests are most served" by actions carried out there.

1/ The USA gets a friendly government and guaranteed supply of oil.
2/ Iran gets Shia dominance and control by proxy if they can create enough mayhem which gives the Shia majority enough momentum to slaughter the Sunnies and possibly Kurds. (who by the way, (kurds I mean) slaughtered the Assyrian Christians in their former lives) Iran stands to gain most, because if they have Iraq, they also have MOST of the worlds oil, and that's not a bad bargaining chip.

3/ Sunni Muslims who have lost and wish to regain their privileges wealth and power. (at the expense of the Shia and Kurds whom they brutally oppressed via Sadaam for decades)

None of these competing interests will result in all people being happy or safe.

It is the lure of such power, which does indeed make men mad.

Iran gains most, control oil, you control the world.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 6 June 2006 6:37:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD,

For the record, the boy I mentioned was killed in a US airstrike, not in a suicide bombing.

There are a multitude of such events we never see in the media because they don't fit the sanitised Hollywood version we are being fed. The use of White Phosphorus ("shake and bake") weapons in civilian areas is particularly horrific yet hardly mentioned.

This IS the big picture - and it will go on for at least another generation.

When American controls the Middle East, America controls the oil and that's precisely what it been about all along. "Freedom" and "liberty" are just the public relations slogans being used to justify their actions.

If the West really believe in those concepts, why do they keep supporting and sponsoring oppressive regimes in many countries around the world?

Remember who put and kept Saddam in power for all those years.
Posted by rache, Tuesday, 6 June 2006 9:01:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout,

Great to see reason and common sense prevails.

Boaz,

Your intellectual dishonesty protraying Islam can only be outperformed by Cardinal Pell.

All the best to both of you :-)
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 6 June 2006 1:58:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RACHE said

"If the West really believe in those concepts, why do they keep supporting and sponsoring oppressive regimes in many countries around the world?

Remember who put and kept Saddam in power for all those years."

My heart goes out to you on this one.....becasue you seem to be locked into an unrealistic sense of sentimental idealism which views international relations somewhat like the themes from Bambi. Thats not meant to annoy you, its just that well...how simple it would be if we could classify all groups as 'good guys' (white hats) and 'bad guys' (black hats)... *sigh*....

Unfortunately, what you describe as 'aggressive' regimes, are on balance determined to be 'more favorable' to US economic and military security than the alternatives. Personally, I feel such examples as the CIA engineered coup in Chili against a democratically elected leftist government were ethically disgraceful, but you may be sure of one thing "We reap....what we sow" and perhaps 911 was indeed a 'wake up' call for such adventures, while not directly related to it.

As for Sadaam. The US supported him against Iran, but he put himself in power from what I read.. by taking it and killing all who opposed him. Looking at Iraq today and the factions.. can you see anyone better ? My sympathy for the Kurds ran a bit dry when I read how they slaughtered the Assyrian Christians in times gone by.. "reaping what we sow" again...

F.H. welcome back. I am not trying to be dishonest.. (comes naturally :)..kidding.. I actually believe what I say about Islam.
Just as I believe you are a nice bloke.
Cadinal Pell ? *recoils in shock*.... at least I smile more than him :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 6:41:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David,

The CIA helped plan the overthrow of President Kassim in 1963 by Saddam and the Ba’athists by direct involvement in the planning of the coup plus the supply of 600 names on the infamous Death List. They supported the Ba’athists because of their close links with the military.
Kassim was a US target because he took Iraq out of the (anti-Soviet) Baghdad Pact in 1958 and because he nationalised part of the British-controlled Iraq Petroleum company and resurrected a long-standing Iraqi claim to Kuwait.

This was a period where the USA was involved in the overthrow of several leaders in Latin America and Indo-China that showed any hint of independence. Tens of thousands have died as a result.

America has been directly involved in State-sponsored terrorism since 1818 when John Quincy Adams, in support of Andrew Jackson, hailed the “salutary efficacy” of terror in dealing with lawless Indians and negroes.

George Bush Senior turned his support back to Saddam’s Imperial Guard after the first Gulf War in helping put down a populist rebellion because he preferred a military overthrow of Saddam to a democratic one. This betrayal cost the lives of thousands of Iraqis and, like the betrayal of the Afghanis after the Soviet war, helps maintain anti-American sentiment in the region.
The current situation is that the US now wants more direct control of the oil than through an intermediary.

Even the rise of Fundamentalist Islam can be directly traced backed to the consequences of the ongoing US support of the Shah of Iran.

There are no “good guys” in these situations but on balance, it’s probably better to have the USA on our side than against us.

People who believe that the USA is simply working for the good of all mankind watch too much television or believe everything they read in the newspapers.

They work only in their own best interests – and rightly so.

Don’t mistake this for a typical anti-US rant. It’s just an attempt to keep a sense of balance in a debate that is far more complex than it seems.
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 10:47:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Wobbles...

I pretty much agree.. 100% :)

I don't recall ever actually claiming that the US was the 'good' guys, just the guys more likely to produce a secure outcome for us.
I don't feel they have done their or our cause much good by the actions you stated, I'm sure there must have been better ways to achieve beneficial goals than brute force.

Sadly, if one examines the history of most countries, even those who the US bulldozed this way or that, they would have ultimately done the same to their neighbours or to segments of their own communities, and for the same reasons.

...and this partly explains on a human level at least, why I choose to align myself with a stream of history which is independant of all that.
I can bat with the best of em about the political angles and intrigue, but my heart is always with Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven.
Nothing has ever given me such joy and wholeness, as being a part of that which is shaping history in a dimension not often seen at the forefront of things. I believe many African leaders who do show good faith to their people have their ethical grounding from mission schools and in that same stream of history.

But Mr Machievelli is always close by, lurking, tempting, luring man and woman into webs of self interest, greed and lust for power.
As Jesus said "Be in the world, but not 'of' it"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 9 June 2006 6:13:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wobbles,

You stole my thunder.

After reading though the posts I was about to bring that up too.

Isn't it amazing how many people don't even know about that sort of stuff?

And you can be sure that the more more ludicrous members of this forum will be back to argue their same old predictable arguements the next time this topic is brought up; and possibly accomanied by the o-so predictable accusations of Anti-Americanism and terrorist sympathy as well.

Mr Boaz,

Your Bible quote is something I try telling myself whenever I feel like fleeing our insane and somewhat blinded society.
Posted by Mr Man, Sunday, 11 June 2006 2:27:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks saintfletcher for your thoughts.
The world is in a mess and someone should do something about it.
Then I woke up and realised that I am someone.
Posted by Peace, Sunday, 11 June 2006 8:10:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy