No one chooses the tyrant in preference to going free, you bloody, misrationalizing, hemipygian idiot. They can only be browbeaten into it by threats and killings. Do not advocate the slave viewpoint in my presence. You do not think like a free adult human being. Why then do you still have human shape? You should go on all fours, at the end of a leash, slave.

here trollytrollytrolly troll...

It certainly sounds oogly, but what does it mean?

Do you like raspberry, lookout123? :p

Well put, Wolf, for it's not yet in the dictionaries. Now, if callipygian means "possessed of or pertaining to beautiful or shapely buttocks," I'd say hemipygian works no matter how you slice it, vertically or horizontally.

I know another word for thesaurus, too.

Whatever it is, that's not Bruce.

Peter Mark Roget never knew this word, and many editions of Roget don't have it, but later editions do. Roget compiled his immortal tome in the eighteenth century, and the synonym absolutely screams nineteenth-century style.

I have a word dinosaur, but I don't use it much.

ME? An expert? PFFFFFT! I'm like everyone else around here. I barely know what I'm talking about! However, it is my understanding that we share in common with the UK the English language, the Christian tradition, the same ideals of democracy (remember the Magna Carta?), etc.

Yep, I can hear the Brits now: "OMG, we're going to have to learn the English language, convert to Christianity, and switch over to a representative government!"

Brit1: "I say, Old Boy, I fear the cousins across the pond may impose their upstart culture upon us!"

Brit2: "Shocking, I must say! A real stain on the old school tie! What say we go fly an airplane into the World Trade Center?"

Brit1: "Smashing idea! Shall we arrange for the Queen to issue a Jihad?"

Brit2: "BRilliant! Prince Andrew has always wanted to pay the cousins back for what they did to his great-great-great grandfather in 1776! Cheerio! Pip, Pip, carry on then!"

Or are you talking about the London as "Mecca for Muslim terrorists/boys of Muslim families sent off to summer terror camp" thing? You want me to explain why Britain is responsible for THAT? Try LOCATION! It's much easier to get to London from Pakistan than it is to go the extra frequent flier miles to NYC. Also try history. Remember the British Empire? The East India Company? How about the sepoy rebellion? The Brits have a long history with the area of East India which includes a significant muslim population as in Pakistan, among others. The Brits are used to seeing them walking around. Heck, they're probably Gunga Din's third cousin or something and the Muslim fanatic doesn't have the heart to tell Mrs. Polifax that Rudyard Kipling has died quite sometime back.


Er... earth to UT? :mg:

If you don't really have an answer for the second question ("Why does Britain produce terrorists?") then one has to assume that your answer to the first question ("Why does the Middle East produce terrorists?") is a load of hooey.

I had already assumed that but wanted to make sure everyone else had perspective on it too.

:fuse:

Every country of sufficient size produces terrorists. Only the numbers are different.

Happy Monkey is right, its a question of numbers. Any society will produce a certain number of criminals. Show me your statistics on terrorists from the UK whose family is native to Great Britain and not part of some recently arrived ethnic minority with an ax to grind.

Mari woke up!!!! Hi, Mari!!

Look, I think we can all agree that facts are meaningless...they can be used to prove anything.

May I quote you on that? OK, lets throw all those stupid facts out the window. I'm right and everybody else is stupid. There, how's that? :eyebrow:

Mari, I was quoting Homer Simpson...have another cuppa.

From The NY Times of 31 July 2005
British Bombers' Rage Formed in a Caldron of Discontent When your religion becomes more than a relationship between yourself and your god, what happens next? A question repeatedly answered by history - and by the most latest examples in Britian. Underlying facts that put the above quotes into perspective are found in that long article. Above is but only a soundbyte answer. Insufficient to answer UT's question.

Sorry, Brianna. You're right, I hadn't had my coffee yet. I hate weekends. I sell roses on Friday and Saturday nights and I don't get home 'till late and it throws off my biological clock. By time I've re-righted it, its Friday again. I think Saturday is my crabbiest day of the week, and I can get pretty crabby as it is! ;) :coffee:

Well, for millions of people, for thousands of years that has been the choice. Yes choice, because they think a Dictator, King, Omnipotent Potentate will keep order and protect them from enemies foreign and domestic. Now you know that's not true...see above. Fortunately for you I'm not in your presence. Nor will I be buying you any presents. If you are such a champion of truth, justice and the American Way, how is it you've forgotten about free speech. Guess you're just a tyrant with a different rant. I sure do, that's why I won't let you squash my free speech. Slave? See, you are just another petty tyrant.....or maybe one of those CA Nancy Boys that buy Arnies magazines. Do you have a steel reinforced collar, mirrors in your glasses and razor blades on your thumb nails? :lol:

Actually, I think Urbane Guerilla makes a good case for the thought that the US produces terrorists! :lol:

Well, 'terrorist' and 'guerilla' are labels for groups with similar tactics, just different choices of targets.

'Freedom fighter' is reserved for individuals who kill and maim for an especially noble purpose (or one that the speaker agrees with), sometimes regardless of their targets.

I think rebels, guerillas, and 'freedom fighters' can all be lumped together in the 'insurgent' class. I know that 'terrorist' has been mentioned in the news seperately from insurgent, but that may have been because the speaker wished to use the sub-class label.

If insurgent means irregular forces opposed to an established authority, than that would include the founding fathers, and the Texas insurgents who fought at the Alamo.

It is a little ironic that both of these groups would meet the current standards of 'enemy combatants' and be eligible for indefinite detention at Guantanamo. This is of course better than the treatment they would have gotten at the hands of some British and Mexican commanders, who advocated summary execution.

What's happening in Iraq is a class war between the Sunnis and Shiites. We just happen to have enabled it and therefore are in the middle of it. The side we are not on automatically become the insurgents. :cool:

And they are conned thereby -- which isn't choice at all, but being defrauded. Tyrannies do their thing by force and by fraud, and are illegitimate governments to the degree that they do either. This is also known as browbeating by threats and killings. Libertarians understand this, but Bruce doesn't. Just because Bruce doesn't see this doesn't mean I'm in error. Which of us better grasps history will be seen in due course.

Here you in effect define free speech as that speech which agrees with you. Sorry, kiddo: my free speech is good for telling you in what manner and degree you are a tyrant-loving fellow-traveling booby, and no champion of human liberty. A reflexive contrarianism won't win you this, either; it paints you into absurd and untenable positions. Contrarianism is the property of trolls, and you know how much respect they get.

I am here to speak against tyranny. You are here to speak against me. That smart or what? Free adult human beings do not stick up for slavery, oppression, genocide, or the myriad villainies that are part and parcel of non-democratic regimes worldwide. Slavemongers and the slave-minded, however, will jump right in. They want the rest of us as messed up as they are.

you don't get it UG - you are not speaking out against tyranny - you are speaking in favor of a different form of tyranny. you seem to think that you hold the patent on truth, justice, and the RIGHT way, and anyone who doesn't agree with your wisdom is worthy of ridicule and name calling. in your previous post you talk about people following a system or leader only because they've been browbeaten into submission or otherwise fooled - what do you think you are trying to do here? "my way rules, yer all fools" isn't exactly known for winning the hearts and minds to your way of thought.


and, jeez - your posting style is moving closer and closer to TW's with every post you make - this is frightening.

psssssst, Lookout! Don't scare it with any sudden moves or loud sounds. Ignore it and it will go away... :mg:

We tried that with you, and it only worked for a while.

And you're still tryin it with me, but I'm a persistant little sh*t :biggrin:

:mg:

You didn't get the memo, or...?

actually when i first read it i thought tony was slamming me, but then i realized he was talking to marichiko. i'm a little slow but give me a few weeks and i usually catch on.

See? I WARNED you what would happen, but NO--ooh, you just couldn't keep your little fingers off the keyboard, now could you? Now, see what you've done? :worried:

Keep talking, the more you say the more you show how seriuosly fucked up you really are. Even Radar on his most rabid Libertarian rants never approached your level of wrong. Which reminds me, every other Libertarian tells me the constitution forbids us from using the armed forces for anything but defending our shores. Yet you want to go beat up every country that YOU don't approve of. I didn't know there is diametrically opposed Libertarians. :lol:

Tisk, tisk, tisk, Bruce. Poor Urbane Guerilla has probably only just now been de-instutionalized. I'm sure he's doing the best he can - waiting to use the internet terminal at the public library, trying to remember if he took his meds or not... Must be quite difficult, I'm sure. Oh, and let's not forget that he just climbed Mt. Everest, too. No doubt he is suffering from O2 deprivation and altitude sickness on top of everything else! :lol:

Oxygen deprivation humor from you, Mar? Isn't that sorta weirdly inappropriate?

i have tried like a motherfucker to ignore multichiko since she came back. i even had her on my ignore list, which i have never ever done before. but you fuckers keep talking to her. it really dissapoints me. i considered just forgetting about the cellar for a while, but thats a cop out. i cant put up with this any longer, cuz jinx keeps telling me how fucked up and annoying she is since she came back.

just shut up. shut up shut up shut up.

and you pricks that keep talking to her and participating in her sycophantic exchanges need to keep in mind that your stock drops with each of those posts.

One thing I have come to realize is that terrorism it not only fought with guns and bombs and violence, but with propaganda as well. These groups are big on this. From the videos of "executions," internet postings, all those videos and audio tapes put out by bin laden and al qaeda, even the claiming responsibility for attacks. They even use news agencies, both foreign and our own domestic outlets. I just read a news report that said insrugents handed out flyers in Haditha claiming they had killed 10 Marines and taken all their weapons. It's all propaganda whether it's true or not and they use it to bolster support for their cause and recuritment numbers. They use it for bragging rights. It gets everyone pumping their fists and chanting in the streets. I used to think that all we had to do is launch a propaganda war of our own, but I've come to realize that the everyday person over there is willing to listen any news as long as it's not from the U.S.

hey Jim? you just talked about her.

Ooh, he's got you there Jim, you did talk about her. Oh, now I've done it! There it is again!

context, please? did i miss a mari/lj flamewar?

Why, not at all UT, it takes one to know one! :lol:

ABOUT....not to. the difference matters

Somebody crazed enough to defend tyrannies everywhere, which is what you're too messed up to see you are doing, Bruce, telling me I'm a little off?-- my, my, that feels like a medal.

Peace at any price seems to be the standard you march under. I'm here to tell you slavery and oppression are worse than war, which is pretty much a given with the more vertebrate thinkers -- and the more vertebrate sort of libertarian, as well.

Since the kind of nations I disapprove of are uniformly totalitarian ones -- you wouldn't want to live under those regimes either, I don't think, not unless you have remarkably strong masochistic traits (I don't) -- it simply cannot be wrong that I would attack them, nor would it ever be wrong to make war upon such. The Communists used to misuse the term "war of national liberation," but the record so far is that it's the democracies, particularly the United States, that actually liberate -- by war with totalitarian systems. We have replaced totalitarian systems in two sizeable nations by warfare already: Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan have both been, in the end, improved. Even though each country got raked over pretty thoroughly, the improvement has stuck, even in a never-democratic place like Japan. Neither nation's political system precisely resembles the American, but I don't see they have to.

It seems you don't have much understanding of how umbrella a term "Libertarian" really is. That's just intellectually lazy: there are at least three major and separate streams of Libertarian philosophy: right-Libertarian, a very Jeffersonian lot; left-Libertarian, who seem to come at it from a free-love-and-legal-weed elderly-hippie platform; and the anarcho-Libertarian, who are perhaps the most radically anti-big-government of the lot, through being hostile to the very notion of any government at all -- though modified, I think, by experience. As you can tell, I'm no leftist, and I should mention that while the late Murray Rothbard was my first exposure to Libertarian thinking, I don't share his touchingly naive belief that anarchic social models are the answer to it all. That leaves the right-Libertarian, unless I can start a whole new, aggressive, brook-no-interference branch of the philosophy myself. Since I usually find myself agreeing with the kind of ideas, particularly in foreign policy, that the Republicans come up with, though unhappy with the Reps' enthusiasm for a great big state and debasing the currency by inflation, I figure I'm a right-Libertarian.

It's something like this: if libertarian ideas of proper governance are to spread beyond the borders of the United States, those holding these ideas are going to be subject to repression by the statist thugs of the very nations that need libertarianism the most: the autocracies, the oligarchies, the totalitarian regimes. They must be prepared to resist that oppression. Moral suasion isn't going to do it, as we all know, since such thugs aren't there to open a panel discussion about the issues, and the thugs employed by such states basically aren't going to have a place in the society the libertarians wish to make, certainly not as thugs. So we libertarians must be prepared to countenance violence, and revolution, and to be more efficient at it than the tyrannies can be. The slavemonger revolutionaries have managed successful accession to power by such revolution, and their strategies are well known. Why can't these strategies be turned to the aid of making open and free societies instead of closed national slave-pens?

Oh, and those Libertarians who alleged to you the Constitution forbids war save in the most narrowly defined understanding of "defensive?" They cannot point to any Constitutional clause that says that -- certainly not in Article I, Section 8, 11-16.

Marichiko? Sorry, but sane has never been and never shall be defined as "agrees with Marichiko." Nor is insane defined to the contrary.

You are very young, and you are very immature. Only time will cure that. I can offer a hint: don't compete with Jaguar for the top prize in the fatuity category.

UG, what we here at the Cellar have deteremined, through a very lengthy process taking years, is that big-L and small-l libertarians of every stripe are an extremely anti-social lot.

This has little to do with political theory, although it has a great deal to do with politics.

I count myself as anti-social but also in the process of learning how to deal with it.

Hey Urbane G, I'm curious to know how you score on the political compass.
Here's the thread, so we don't hijack this one.

What started as a refreshing counterpoint to liberal diarrhea is starting to sound a wee pompous and...dare I say it...trollish. Make thy mark, UG, that we may know what flavor of lunatic you are. (I'm a republicanarchist).

Flattery will get you nowhere, UG. Yeah, I'm doing my best to fill Jaguar's shoes until his return when I will then defer to the "greater master." :p

Well, yeah, Undertoad -- we're the antisocialists! Only stands to Reason -- the magazine.

Noodle, cool. Haven't looked at it just yet, but is this "The World's Shortest Political Quiz," with the diamond-shaped board? I landed in the upper-mid portion of it, last time I tried it.

Looks like a variation on that Shortest Political Quiz idea.

Economic Left/Right 6.0, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -2.46

Tolja I was a right-Libertarian. That's the quadrant I fall into.

Here's the problem UG. Statism is statism whether you're arguing for hammocks for the homeless or a large mushroom cloud over Tehran, you are growing government power and reducing freedom here, in the country we supposedly control. We have built a spectacular socialist enterprise in our military and among military contractors. There is also the interesting problem in the mid-east where given the opportunity the locals will vote for oppression (I guess we do that here on a regular basis as well). If Iraqis wanted to be free they would have offed Hussein a long time ago. 1800 dead American soldiers for an Islamic Democracy allied with Iran, are you really happy with that outcome? Our involvement gives aid and comfort to the enemies of freedom by increasing their recruitment exponentially. Bush will have to hit a lot more boy scout jamborees if he wants enough carcasses for that meat grinder. Watch carefully as the Republicans slowly realize what a CF this is and begin to pull back their support. I'd hate to see a nominal libertarian left defending Bush when his impeachment should be a shoe-in.

Impeachment? Nobody gets impeached for winning a war, nor should they; and no one here should seek to lose this war. I have never seen a real reason to treat GWB as the enemy (I've heard a great many that don't cut it); it's those anti-libertarian tyrants we are fighting, after all. They are not the stumblefucks we should surrender to. And do you see anybody at all trying to bust Saddam out? For his sins, he's going to get fairly tried, by Iraqis, and then get hanged and it couldn't happen to a nicer and more deserving guy.

Nope, they have a new bunch of tyrants scrambling for the top. They don't need the old one.

Even if we win we lose. We'll never make friends in that part of the world by dropping bombs. We'll lose the PR campaign every time. Our past association with tyrants makes that impossible. http://www.bartcop.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg The foreign nutjob terrorists are overplaying their hand right now and there will be an Iraqi backlash but it will pay no dividends to us.

Bush really did lie about Saddams WMD development, to justify his war, and that should lead to his impeachment.

And the next one...and the next one.....and the.... :cool:

No, but maybe they should be impeached for starting one uneccesarily.

From Nuremberg
Has a 'winner' ever been successfully tried? Probably not.

If we have won the war, why do we continue to send troops over there to be killed?

So, what if Bush were to send tanks into Canada just because he can and killed a bunch of Canadian non-combatants and the Canadians surrendered? A president shouldn't be impeached for such an act? What if Hitler had won in WWII? Would that automatically make him a good guy? History is certainly written by the victors, but I think your rhetoric is lacking in coherance and logic. A bad tempered outlook of "kill 'em all" does not make you a patriot, but, rather, a fool.

Should a leader be tried if he builds weapons of mass destruction, uses those weapons in defense of his country, and loses the war? If the leader was told he was going to be attacked, and did not build those WMDs, then clearly he would be the enemy of his country - deserve to be impeached or assassinated.

Meanwhile Iran is doing just that - building WMDs because George Jr all but said we will invade Iran. And yet George Jr calls the Iranian leader evil for only doing what he must do for his country.

You tell me. Is that Iranian leader evil or is he good? Because he actually does what Saddam only threatened, then does this Iranian leader deserve to be attacked, captured, and put on trial like Saddam for using WMDs on invading American troops? You tell me where morality lies? Who then is the good and who then is the evil one?

I think this guy is making a play for some of the leftover virgins. Either that, or he's just an unmitigated fucktard who uses his freedom and democratic privilege to wage verbal war against the countries whose teats he suckles from.

Who is this fuckhead Galloway anyway? What's an "MP?"

Member of Parliament.

Galloway said a lot of the right things when he was before congress a while back.

That doesn't mean he's not an asshat though.

The guy is big on hyperbole, I'll grant - not that you would know anything about that subject, Mr. N! ;) Mr Galloway also claimed "the insurgents were ordinary Iraqis defending their country against foreign invaders." There's something to be said for that, let's face it. The US is a foreign country, we did invade Iraq. These two things are true. Many Iraqi's did lose innocent, civilian family members in the US invasion. The Iraqi's act to retaliate against us for this. There IS that component.