Twilight of the Psychopaths

WakeUp

Twilight of the Pyschopaths
Dr. Kevin Barret

The Canadian
August 21, 2008



“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we’re
being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.” – John Lennon.


When Gandhi was asked his opinion of Western civilization he said it would be a good idea. But that oft-cited quote, is misleading, assuming as it does that civilization is an unmitigated blessing.
Civilized people, we are told, live peacefully and cooperatively with their fellows, sharing the necessary labour in order to obtain the leisure to develop arts and sciences. And while that would be a good idea, it is not a good description of what has been going on in the so-called advanced cultures during the past 8,000 years.
Civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths. All civilizations, our own included, have been based on slavery and “warfare.” Incidentally, the latter term is a euphemism for mass murder.
The prevailing recipe for civilization is simple:
1) Use lies and brainwashing to create an army of controlled, systematic mass murderers;
2) Use that army to enslave large numbers of people (i.e. seize control of their labour power and its fruits);
3) Use that slave labour power to improve the brainwashing process (by using the economic surplus to employ scribes, priests, and PR men). Then go back to step one and repeat the process.
Psychopaths have played a disproportionate role in the development of civilization, because they are hard-wired to lie, kill, injure, and generally inflict great suffering on other humans without feeling any remorse. The inventor of civilization — the first tribal chieftain who successfully brainwashed an army of controlled mass murderers—was almost certainly a genetic psychopath. Since that momentous discovery, psychopaths have enjoyed a significant advantage over non-psychopaths in the struggle for power in civilizational hierarchies — especially military hierarchies.
Military institutions are tailor-made for psychopathic killers. The 5% or so of human males who feel no remorse about killing their fellow human beings make the best soldiers. And the 95% who are extremely reluctant to kill make terrible soldiers — unless they are brainwashed with highly sophisticated modern techniques that turn them (temporarily it is hoped) into functional psychopaths.
In On Killing, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has re-written military history, to highlight what other histories hide: The fact that military science is less about strategy and technology, than about overcoming the instinctive human reluctance to kill members of our own species. The true “Revolution in Military Affairs” was not Donald Rumsfeld’s move to high-tech in 2001, but Brigadier Gen. S.L.A. Marshall’s discovery in the 1940s that only 15-20% of World War II soldiers along the line of fire would use their weapons: “Those (80-85%) who did not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges” (Grossman, p. 4).
Marshall’s discovery and subsequent research, proved that in all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers — the 5% who are natural-born psychopaths, and perhaps a few temporarily-insane imitators—did almost all the killing. Normal men just went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths. (This cannot be good for humanity’s genetic endowment!)
Marshall’s work, brought a Copernican revolution to military science. In the past, everyone believed that the soldier willing to kill for his country was the (heroic) norm, while one who refused to fight was a (cowardly) aberration. The truth, as it turned out, was that the normative soldier hailed from the psychopathic five percent. The sane majority, would rather die than fight.
The implication, too frightening for even the likes of Marshall and Grossman to fully digest, was that the norms for soldiers’ behaviour in battle had been set by psychopaths. That meant that psychopaths were in control of the military as an institution. Worse, it meant that psychopaths were in control of society’s perception of military affairs. Evidently, psychopaths exercised an enormous amount of power in seemingly sane, normal society.



How could that be? In Political Ponerology, Andrzej Lobaczewski explains that clinical psychopaths enjoy advantages even in non-violent competitions to climb the ranks of social hierarchies. Because they can lie without remorse (and without the telltale physiological stress that is measured by lie detector tests) psychopaths can always say whatever is necessary to get what they want. In court, for example, psychopaths can tell extreme bald-faced lies in a plausible manner, while their sane opponents are handicapped by an emotional predisposition to remain within hailing distance of the truth. Too often, the judge or jury imagines that the truth must be somewhere in the middle, and then issues decisions that benefit the psychopath. As with judges and juries, so too with those charged with decisions concerning who to promote and who not to promote in corporate, military and governmental hierarchies. The result is that all hierarchies inevitably become top-heavy with psychopaths.
So-called conspiracy theorists, some of whom deserve the pejorative connotation of that much-abused term, often imagine that secret societies of Jews, Jesuits, bankers, communists, Bilderbergers, Muslim extremists, papists, and so on, are secretly controlling history, doing dastardly deeds, and/or threatening to take over the world. As a leading “conspiracy theorist” according to Wikipedia, I feel eminently qualified to offer an alternative conspiracy theory which, like the alternative conspiracy theory of 9/11, is both simpler and more accurate than the prevailing wisdom: The only conspiracy that matters is the conspiracy of the psychopaths against the rest of us.
Behind the apparent insanity of contemporary history, is the actual insanity of psychopaths fighting to preserve their disproportionate power. And as that power grows ever-more-threatened, the psychopaths grow ever-more-desperate. We are witnessing the apotheosis of the overworld—the criminal syndicate or overlapping set of syndicates that lurks above ordinary society and law just as the underworld lurks below it. In 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, we are seeing the final desperate power-grab or “endgame” (Alex Jones) of brutal, cunning gangs of CIA drug-runners and President-killers; money-laundering international bankers and their hit-men, economic and otherwise; corrupt military contractors and gung-ho generals; corporate predators and their political enablers; brainwashers and mind-rapists euphemistically known as psy-ops experts and PR specialists—in short, the whole sick crew of certifiable psychopaths running our so-called civilization. And they are running scared. It was their terror of losing control that they projected onto the rest of us by blowing up the Twin Towers and inciting temporary psychopathic terror-rage in the American public.
Why does the pathocracy fear it is losing control? Because it is threatened by the spread of knowledge. The greatest fear of any psychopath is of being found out. As George H. W. Bush said to journalist Sarah McClendon, December 1992, “If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us.” Given that Bush is reported to have participated in parties where child prostitutes were sodomized and otherwise abused, among his many other crimes, his statement to McClendon should be taken seriously.
Psychopaths go through life knowing that they are completely different from other people. They quickly learn to hide their lack of empathy, while carefully studying others’ emotions so as to mimic normalcy while cold-bloodedly manipulating the normals.
Today, thanks to new information technologies, we are on the brink of unmasking the psychopaths and building a civilization of, by and for the normal human being — a civilization without war, a civilization based on truth, a civilization in which the saintly few rather than the diabolical few would gravitate to positions of power. We already have the knowledge necessary to diagnose psychopathic personalities and keep them out of power. We have the knowledge necessary to dismantle the institutions in which psychopaths especially flourish — militaries, intelligence agencies, large corporations, and secret societies. We simply need to disseminate this knowledge, and the will to use it, as widely as possible.
Above all, we need to inform the public about how psychopaths co-opt and corrupt normal human beings. One way they do this, is by manipulating shame and denial — emotions foreign to psychopaths but common and easily-induced among normals.
Consider how gangs and secret societies (psychopaths’ guilds in disguise) recruit new members. Some criminal gangs and satanist covens demand that candidates for admission commit a murder to “earn their stripes.” Skull and Bones, the Yale-based secret society that supplies the CIA with drug-runners, mind-rapists, child abusers and professional killers, requires neophytes to lie naked in a coffin and masturbate in front of older members while reciting the candidate’s entire sexual history. By forcing the neophyte to engage in ritualized behaviour that would be horrendously shameful in normal society, the psychopaths’ guild destroys the candidate’s normal personality, assuming he had one in the first place, and turns the individual into a co-opted, corrupt, degraded shadow of his former self — a manufactured psychopath or psychopath’s apprentice.
This manipulation of shame has the added benefit of making psychopathic organizations effectively invisible to normal society. Despite easily available media reports, American voters in 2004 simply refused to see that the two major-party presidential candidates had lain naked in a coffin masturbating in front of older Bonesmen in order to gain admission to Skull and Bones and thus become members of the criminal overworld. Likewise, many Americans have long refused to see that hawkish elements of the overworld, operating through the CIA, had obviously been the murderers of JFK, MLK, RFK, JFK Jr., Malcolm X, ChÈ, AllendÈ, Wellstone, Lumumba, Aguilera, Diem, and countless other relatively non-psychopathic leaders. They refuse to see the continuing murders of millions of people around the world in what amounts to an American holocaust. They refuse to see the evidence that the psychopaths’ guilds running America’s most powerful institutions use the most horrific forms of sexualized abuse imaginable to induce multiple-personality-disorder in child victims, then use the resulting mind-control slaves as disposable drug-runners, prostitutes. And of course they refuse to see that 9/11 was a transparently obvious inside job, and that their own psychopath-dominated military-intelligence apparatus is behind almost every major terrorist outrage of recent decades.
All of this psychopathic behaviour at the top of the social hierarchy is simply too shameful for ordinary people to see, so they avert their gaze, just as wives of husbands who are sexually abusing their children sometimes refuse to see what is happening in plain view. If deep, deep denial were a river in Egypt, American citizens’ wilful blindness would be more like the Marianas Trench.
But thanks to the power of the internet, people everywhere are waking up. The only obvious non-psychopath among Republican presidential candidates, Ron Paul, also happens to be the only candidate in either party with significant grassroots support.
If “love” is embedded in the Revolution Ron Paul heralds, that is because Dr. Paul — a kindly, soft-spoken physician who has delivered more than 4,000 babies — implicitly recognizes that government is the invention and tool of psychopaths, and therefore must be strictly limited in scope and subjected to a rigorous system of checks and balances, lest the psychopath’s tools, fear and hatred, replace love as the glue that binds society together.
The decline in militarism since World War II in advanced countries, the spread of literacy and communications technology, and the people’s growing demands for a better life, together represent a gathering force that terrifies the pathocracy, (those alternately competing-then-cooperating gangs of psychopaths who have ruled through lies, fear and intimidation since the dawn of so-called civilization).
Since nuclear weapons have made war obsolete, the pathocracy is terrified that its favourite social control mechanism — ritualized mass slaughter — is increasingly unavailable. And if war was the great human tragedy, the pathocrats’ pathetic attempt at a war-substitute — the transparently phoney “war on terror” — is repeating it as sheerest farce.
Truly, we are witnessing the twilight of the psychopaths. Whether in their death throes they succeed in pulling down the curtain of eternal night on all of us, or whether we resist them and survive to see the dawn of a civilization worthy of the name, is the great decision in which all of us others, however humbly, are now participating.

Mahatma coat

Casey, PM me, I have an Idea

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Casey, PM me, I have an Idea

You think this person is a sockpuppet of a frequently banned user, and you're asking him to pm you?


Don't you guys get, like a manual or something?

WakeUp

think you guys are both mixing me up with somebody else I joined this blog yesterday is it the user name maybe?.. was a little surprised wakeup was available anyways Im a newbie so is all good lol

Diogenes

WakeUp wrote: »

think you guys are both mixing me up with somebody else I joined this blog yesterday is it the user name maybe?.. was a little surprised wakeup was available anyways Im a newbie so is all good lol

Ah Kevin 'hang em high Barrett!

kevin who was

U.S. Congressional candidate Kevin Barrett, a former one-semester instructor at UW-Madison, was arrested in Madison Tuesday for violating a restraining order filed by his wife, Fatna Bellouchi.

According to Madison Police Officer Lori Chalecki, Barrett turned himself in to police after violating the no-contact provision of his restraining order.

On Sept. 10, Barrett was charged with domestic abuse following a criminal complaint filed by Bellouchi.

According to the complaint, Barrett struck his 14-year-old son several times in the back and threatened Bellouchi with clenched fists.

Kevin Barrett who once said

In war crimes news, the criminal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan - the worst war crime since Hitler invaded Poland - is not going well for the invaders and occupiers. According to a recent article in The Guardian, the patriotic people of Pakistan and Afghanistan are joining together to resist occupation: "The Pakistani Frontier Corps has been heavily infiltrated and influenced by Taliban militants, sometimes joining in attacks on coalition forces, according to classified US 'after-action' reports compiled following clashes on the border." The so-called "Taliban militants," of course, are simply patriotic citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan, who, like the citizens of any other country, do not want to live under foreign military occupation.

Kevin, who said

As the example of Nuremburg suggests, journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold. You would be well advised to strive for more balanced and accurate coverage in the future.

Yes, Kevin is telling us who among our leaders are psychopaths. Well takes one to know one, I suppose.

WakeUp

Diogenes, mo chara , he who has the massive bee in his bonnet , if your going to pull me up over something its a good idea if you have your facts strait or else you end up looking at little silly, no offence.

Judge Dismisses Kevin Barrett Restraining Order



Story Created: Sep 19, 2008
Story Updated: Sep 19, 2008

BARABOO, Wis. (AP) -- A judge has dismissed a temporary restraining order that kept Libertarian congressional candidate Kevin Barrett from having contact with his two sons.
But Sauk County Circuit Judge Guy Reynolds upheld a petition barring Barrett from contact with his wife.
Both sides agreed to drop a child abuse injunction against Barrett on behalf of the boys. His wife had claimed he hit his 13-year-old son the morning of the Sept. 9 primary election.
Barrett is due in court Oct. 16 on a disorderly conduct charge.
He faces U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, D-La Crosse, in the Nov. 4 election.
Barrett came to public attention in 2006 when he taught a University of Wisconsin-Madison class and expressed skepticism that terrorists were responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.




With regards to the occupation of Afghanistan & Iraq, any people or country invaded by a foreign force or army has the right to defend themselves when they are being butchered daily by the US. So you agree with the invasion do you?..


Your comment about Nuremburg probably only makes sense to yourself but how you can try trun that on its head like that is beyond me.


peace

Diogenes

WakeUp wrote: »

Diogenes, mo chara , he who has the massive bee in his bonnet , if your going to pull me up over something its a good idea if you have your facts strait or else you end up looking at little silly, no offence.

Judge Dismisses Kevin Barrett Restraining Order

Didn't drop the domestic abuse charges.

With regards to the occupation of Afghanistan & Iraq, any people or country invaded by a foreign force or army has the right to defend themselves when they are being butchered daily by the US. So you agree with the invasion do you?..

He's calling the Taliban patriotic citizens. The Taliban who murder women and children. Do you agree with the murder of women?

Of five prominent women interviewed three years ago by The Independent for an article on post-Taliban female emancipation, three, including Ms Kakar, are dead and a fourth has had to flee after narrowly escaping assassination in an ambush in which her husband was killed.

Religious fundamentalists are waging a ruthless campaign to eliminate women who have taken up high-profile jobs. Parliamentarians, schoolteachers, civil servants, security officials and women journalists have been selected for attacks by the jihadists. Countless others have been maimed and murdered in villages where the vengeful Taliban have returned to impose the old order.

from the independent

Your comment about Nuremburg probably only makes sense to yourself but how you can try trun that on its head like that is beyond me.


peace

If you bothered to read the link that the quote comes from you'd see Barrett is referring to a journalist who wrote a disparaging report about a 911 truth movement conference. Barrett suggests that people who don't report his own lunatic views about 911 will find themselves on "the scaffold".

WakeUp

Diogenes wrote: »

Didn't drop the domestic abuse charges.

errr, yes they did.


He's calling the Taliban patriotic citizens. The Taliban who murder women and children. Do you agree with the murder of women?

what sort of a warped question is that.If you where in the room id knock you out. Doesnt warrant a response and your not getting one, krudhead.

from the independent



If you bothered to read the link that the quote comes from you'd see Barrett is referring to a journalist who wrote a disparaging report about a 911 truth movement conference. Barrett suggests that people who don't report his own lunatic views about 911 will find themselves on "the scaffold".

nah your right I didnt bother I couldnt be arsed Id rather watch paint dry than check your link. Stick your head back in the sand lifes a whole lot easier that way isnt it.

Diogenes

errr, yes they did.

No, no they didn't, from your own post

Barrett is due in court Oct. 16 on a disorderly conduct charge.

what sort of a warped question is that.If you where in the room id knock you out. Doesnt warrant a response and your not getting one, krudhead.

No it's a simple question, he's calling them patriots, I'm calling them psychotic women hating religious extremists. You don't bother answering the question. Oh and threat and abuse reported.

WakeUp wrote: »

nah your right I didnt bother I couldnt be arsed Id rather watch paint dry than check your link. Stick your head back in the sand lifes a whole lot easier that way isnt it.

Ah so you don't want to read about the violent threats made by person you link to, carry on.

WakeUp

Diogenes, you lost my respect when you asked in that so matter of fact way do I agree with women and children being murdered?.what do you think I am, you turd.
and stop whinging with your tales of woe and threats I never threatened you, youll have a hard time proving that unless your a lawyer and even then,well. Make sure you get it right.

P.S

conversation is what its all about is why I posted the story in the first place it seems to have struck quite a tender spot with you, truth hurts.

goodbye:)

humanji

If you where in the room id knock you out.

That's a threat.

Doesnt warrant a response and your not getting one, krudhead.

That's a personal attack.

what do you think I am, you turd.

That's another personal attack.

If you wanted a conversation why would you resort to the above? If you're going to be abusive, no one will want to reply to you except for a mod to tell you you're banned (most likely not for the first time).

Diogenes questioned Barretts beliefs, which have a very direct influence on how one would rate his opinions.

WakeUp

hello humaji nice to meet you to:)

"if I was in the room Id knock you out"
thats not a threat its a figure of speech to put someone down and such Ill dig out my oxford dictionary has to be in there somewhere.;)

"krudhead"

That's a personal attack.

anyone who even thinks of such a question as in, do you agree with women and children being murdered is not just a krudhead he or she is an ultrakrudhead ask my choclate salty hoopla. I 100% stand by that comment for above mentioned reason.

"you turd"

That's another personal attack.

no its not its a response to an offensive disgusting question. Words , sentences, paragraphs, whatever many ways to view them.

If you wanted a conversation why would you resort to the above? If you're going to be abusive, no one will want to reply to you except for a mod to tell you you're banned (most likely not for the first time).

Im not abusive far from it Diogenes overstepped the mark in my opinion and whats said has been said.

Diogenes questioned Barretts beliefs, which have a very direct influence on how one would rate his opinions.[/quote]

no problem with that at all hes entitled to his opinion which I respect but I dont respect him so lets agree to disagree..:)

humanji

You insulted and threatened him. You may not have meant to follow through with the threat, but it's still a threat. That makes you abusive. Calm it down, stop insulting people, stop threatening people (even half-heartedly) and people will respond appropriately.

You decided to attack Diogenes for no apparent reason other than that he doesn't much like Barrett. As pointed out, Barret has questionable beliefs and motives and as such calls into question any opinion he puts forward as being anything but biased. Maybe everything he said is true, but with his past record, why would it be believed? It's a valid statement to make.

And even without his background being brought into question, the content of the article is fairly sensationally surreal and more suited to the likes of The Onion. If he's not trying for humour then I think the article shows us exactly who the actual psychopath is.

Diogenes

WakeUp wrote: »

Diogenes, you lost my respect when you asked in that so matter of fact way do I agree with women and children being murdered?.what do you think I am, you turd.

You said that the people of Afghanistan are being butchered daily, and did I agree with that. I turned that on it's head, and asked you if you consider the Taliban's behaviour acceptable. You got offended. I don't what you are, but you think I am faecal matter.

and stop whinging with your tales of woe and threats I never threatened you, youll have a hard time proving that unless your a lawyer and even then,well. Make sure you get it right.

Yeah, threats of physical violence are against the terms of service of this website.

P.S

conversation is what its all about is why I posted the story in the first place it seems to have struck quite a tender spot with you, truth hurts.

goodbye:)

I was merely pointing out the charming character of "Dr Kevin Barrett." You're the one hurling invectives and idle threats, and you think you struck a tender spot with me?

WakeUp

Diogenes wrote: »

You said that the people of Afghanistan are being butchered daily, and did I agree with that. I turned that on it's head, and asked you if you consider the Taliban's behaviour acceptable. You got offended. I don't what you are, but you think I am faecal matter.

No you asked me did I think it was ok to murder women and children read your post again, what sort of a freaky horrible question is that. I dont think your faecal matter aswell Im sure your a wonderfull chap,really.

Yeah, threats of physical violence are against the terms of service of this website.

I take it your going to prove this, if not please put a big wooly sock in it.

I was merely pointing out the charming character of "Dr Kevin Barrett." You're the one hurling invectives and idle threats, and you think you struck a tender spot with me?

really, was that before or after you asked me was it ok to murder women and children?

Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question




(Yes that was one too.)

Diogenes

WakeUp wrote: »

really, was that before or after you asked me was it ok to murder women and children?

Sigh.

Kevin Barrett wrote:

The so-called "Taliban militants," of course, are simply patriotic citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan,

You wrote:

With regards to the occupation of Afghanistan & Iraq, any people or country invaded by a foreign force or army has the right to defend themselves when they are being butchered daily by the US. So you agree with the invasion do you?..

me wrote:

The Taliban who murder women and children. Do you agree with the murder of women?

Barrett views the Taliban as patriotic citizens defending themselves. They are in fact bloodthirsty extremists who murder women and children. They're not defending themselves from US butchers. Do you really think the Taliban are just defending themselves?

I take it your going to prove this, if not please put a big wooly sock in it.

I've reported the post it's in the Mod's hands.

WakeUp

humanji wrote: »

You insulted and threatened him. You may not have meant to follow through with the threat, but it's still a threat. That makes you abusive. Calm it down, stop insulting people, stop threatening people (even half-heartedly) and people will respond appropriately.

You decided to attack Diogenes for no apparent reason other than that he doesn't much like Barrett. As pointed out, Barret has questionable beliefs and motives and as such calls into question any opinion he puts forward as being anything but biased. Maybe everything he said is true, but with his past record, why would it be believed? It's a valid statement to make.

And even without his background being brought into question, the content of the article is fairly sensationally surreal and more suited to the likes of The Onion. If he's not trying for humour then I think the article shows us exactly who the actual psychopath is.

That would be your opinion Humanji of which your entitled but mine would be different. Im not telling people to believe this merely making it available so they can make up their own mind its a blog right? a conspiracy blog? Look back through history one long never ending war after war , death , killing and misery. Why? The majority of the planet dont want it so why does it happen. It happens because the minority are in control and they want it think about it.
I might disagree with what you and diogenes say as you do me but I respect it nonetheless. If you dont believe it then fair enough your entitled to that. Diogenes if I came across as threatening its not what I intended at all apologies if I did has been a long day thanks for the banter lads, peace.

nyarlothothep

Regardless of the author's background, lets look at the article on its own merits. Does he not have a point? Has anyone seen The Corporation?

Corporations, the engines of the economy, are by law registered as individuals, and behave in a manner consistent with psycopathy. They increasingly define our society. Even nation states can behave in an extremely selfish amoral way.
In the US the corporate and politicals elites are almost interchangeable. The phrase business is business is often a cop out, an excuse for a lack of empathy and the pursuit of selfish interests.

Our system isn't sustainable, it is a form of aggressive consumption, lacking in understanding/empathy for natural and human requirements with toxic effects for people and the environment. Its not a conspiracy, its a blatant reality which is the slumbering legacy of older, more autocratic times, dating back to the 16th century when inhumanity was tolerated to a greater degree.

Mahatma coat

Thank you Nyaorothelep, 2 pages before somene actually discussed the OP's article in any sort of meaningful way, tis typical of what we are trying to change about this Forum

Diogeness, how about discussing the article rather than attacking the author as a wifebeater/childmolester, no where in the article does it say that he hit hiswife and it strikes me as more of a vindictive move by the wife during a failing marrige to lay charges against him on the morning of an election primary, course thats the sort of behaviour you seem to applaud.

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Diogeness, how about discussing the article rather than attacking the author as a wifebeater/childmolester, no where in the article does it say that he hit hiswife and it strikes me as more of a vindictive move by the wife during a failing marrige to lay charges against him on the morning of an election primary, course thats the sort of behaviour you seem to applaud.

Pointing out an ad hominem then following it up with with an ad hominem?

Diogenes is also pointing out that the author of the article seems to have a rather simplistic view of the war in Afghanistan, evidence by the fact that he fails to point out how bad the Taliban actually are.

Mahatma coat

My first propper Modly act

WakeUp TempBanned for being abusive

Mahatma coat

so lets get this straight

Talliban Killing civilians and blowin stuff up == BAD
Americans Killing civilians and blowing stuff up == GOOD

that your view of thesituation?

the Taliban are Patriots fighting to defend their country and Way Of Life, the Americans are trying to impose their standards on the Taliban.

IF THEY INVADED MY HOME I WOULD FIGHT TOO

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so lets get this straight

Talliban Killing civilians and blowin stuff up == BAD
Americans Killing civilians and blowing stuff up == GOOD

that your view of thesituation?

A strawman argument too, this is turning into quite the logical fallacy buffet.

Taliban killing civilians = bad
americans killing civilians = bad

Oppressive religious fundamentalist group supplying terrorists and engaging in horrible human rights abuses = very bad

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the Taliban are Patriots fighting to defend their country and Way Of Life, the Americans are trying to impose their standards on the Taliban.

IF THEY INVADED MY HOME I WOULD FIGHT TOO

You mean the way life which includes oppression of fundamental human rights like free speech and women being treated as equals?

Newsflash: the Taliban aren't nice people.

However I also realise that things like this aren't black and white.
The British and American forces there are far from squeaky clean.

Thus I say the the author of the article has a very simplisic view of the situation.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so lets get this straight

Talliban Killing civilians and blowin stuff up == BAD
Americans Killing civilians and blowing stuff up == GOOD

that your view of thesituation?

the Taliban are Patriots fighting to defend their country and Way Of Life, the Americans are trying to impose their standards on the Taliban.

IF THEY INVADED MY HOME I WOULD FIGHT TOO

And if their way of life includes the rape murder and torture of women who had the temerity of wanting to walk to a job they don't think women should have?

Mahatma coat

and they look at us as infidels, whats your point?

Do you think we should be allowed to impose our beliefs on another culture by force of arms?

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and they look at us as infidels, whats your point?

Do you think we should be allowed to impose our beliefs on another culture by force of arms?

It's not about beliefs, it's about an oppressive regime supplying terrorists.

You're surely not suggesting that human rights abuses should be a religious freedom.

Diogenes

Talliban Killing civilians and blowin stuff up == BAD
Americans Killing civilians and blowing stuff up == GOOd
that your view of thesituation?

Wouldn you care to examine the death toil of Afghan civilians by the Taliban vis a vie the death toil of Afghans from the US. The difference is the latter regrets the death toil and tries to compensate, the former doesn't care and indeed actively targets civilians.

Would you like to compare the figures for the murder of people executed in the old Kabul soccer ground, compared to regretable civilian deaths on behalf of the coalition forces.

And hey do you want to spot the differnce, the Taliban happily and proudly executed women for adultery and are proud of it, and the USA is profoundly regretful of it's civilian victims.

I know the above is going to make your brain hurt, but perhaps bonkey can explain the big words to you.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and they look at us as infidels, whats your point?

Do you think we should be allowed to impose our beliefs on another culture by force of arms?

Do you really belief that a man can decide a women should be deined an education by throwing acid on their faces?

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30549&wf=rsscol


Mahatma, put down the shovel and walk away, you're digging yourself into a hole of stupid.

Nick_oliveri

King Mob wrote: »

You're surely not suggesting that human rights abuses should be a religious freedom.

Ahhh bollix, would you support them invading Saudi Arabia for the human rights abuses?

King Mob wrote:

You mean the way life which includes oppression of fundamental human rights like free speech and women being treated as equals?

Diogenes wrote:

And hey do you want to spot the differnce, the Taliban happily and proudly executed women for adultery and are proud of it, and the USA is profoundly regretful of it's civilian victims.

Sexism is still very ramapant in other Islamic countries. Shall we invade them all? Seriously though, what about Kim Jong il? Wheres the fcuking hatred there? Wheres the Dictator?

Nick_oliveri

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Ahhh bollix, would you support them invading Saudi Arabia for the human rights abuses?



Sexism is still very ramapant in other Islamic countries. Shall we invade them all? Seriously though, what about Kim Jong il? Wheres the fcuking hatred there? Wheres the Dictator?

I didn't say I supported the invasion, I'm just showing that the Taliban are not exactly patriotic freedom fighters.
If the war there actually produces a more stable country with more freedoms all the better, but right now it's the very definition of a cluster****.

Mahatma coat

I'm always drawn back to the old statistic

Executions in Texas under the Bush administration
..............................V.....................................
Executions in Afghanistan under the Talliban


my point is,thats their way of life and culture, what makes us so feckin special that we can waltz in and say, stop, we dont like what you are doing, you must do it our way from now on.

Nick_oliveri

King Mob wrote: »

I didn't say I supported the invasion, I'm just showing that the Taliban are not exactly patriotic freedom fighters.
If the war there actually produces a more stable country with more freedoms all the better, but right now it's the very definition of a cluster****.

Fair enough, but still such ignorance remains in other countries, i know its a comparison of weak proportions, but its the same basic principle that deems women less worth than men.

Cluster**** indeed.:mad:

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

my point is,thats their way of life and culture, what makes us so feckin special that we can waltz in and say, stop, we dont like what you are doing, you must do it our way from now on.

Firstly the Taliban are not representative of life and culture in Afghanistan. Pretty much the exact opposite in fact.

Secondly horrible human rights abuses (some of which people on this forum accuse western governments of doing) are not part of anyone's culture.

Thirdly NATO didn't go into Afghanistan to do anything to their culture, rather to oust a religious fundamentalist group from power and stop terrorists from getting supplies.

Nick_oliveri

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Fair enough, but still such ignorance remains in other countries, i know its a comparison of weak proportions, but its the same basic principle that deems women less worth than men.

Cluster**** indeed.:mad:

I most definitely agree. Hopefully some education about equality will take root in some of the more closed countries, and hopefully women will be treated as equals everywhere. But hey, I'm an optimist.

But invading the countries because they do not recognize women's rights ain't a great idea.

Mahatma coat

King Mob wrote: »

Firstly the Taliban are not representative of life and culture in Afghanistan. Pretty much the exact opposite in fact.

maybe not now, since the decadent westerners have poisoned the minds f the people with notions of 'Freedom'

Secondly horrible human rights abuses (some of which people on this forum accuse western governments of doing) are not part of anyone's culture.

OK Apartheid was a system in place in america up til about 50 years ago, they have Gitmo where torture is allowed, they do extraordinary Rendition.

that suggst to me a culture where human life is given very little value

Thirdly NATO didn't go into Afghanistan to do anything to their culture, rather to oust a religious fundamentalist group from power

OK you dont want to change the culture, but you do want to oust the Fundies, the same fundamentalists that it was perfectly reasonable to have over for dinner a year earlier.

and stop terrorists from getting supplies.

Bollox, absolute Bollxology, Oh wait I forgot Afghanistan has one of the largest MilitaryIndustrial complexes in the world


so in summation
:rolleyes:

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

maybe not now, since the decadent westerners have poisoned the minds f the people with notions of 'Freedom'

So every Afghani person approved of the horrible stuff the Taliban was doing? Actual human rights are a threat to their culture?
What exactly are you saying?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK Apartheid was a system in place in america up til about 50 years ago, they have Gitmo where torture is allowed, they do extraordinary Rendition.

that suggst to me a culture where human life is given very little value

Well given Bush's abysmal approval rating it would suggest that the bad stuff governments do is not necessarily the will of the people and says absolutely nothing about their culture.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK you dont want to change the culture, but you do want to oust the Fundies, the same fundamentalists that it was perfectly reasonable to have over for dinner a year earlier.

Yea because business is business to certain governments. Doesn't mean I think is the right thing to do, just means it happens.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Bollox, absolute Bollxology, Oh wait I forgot Afghanistan has one of the largest MilitaryIndustrial complexes in the world

Oh wait I forgot you dismiss any evidence that contradicts your worldview.
And that the media is part of the NWO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Relationship_with_Osama_bin_Laden

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen.02/index.html

Mahatma coat

Seriously who are the terrorists in Afghanistan,

the peasent farmer defending his home with an AK47 left over from when they kicked the **** out of teh Soviets.

or the invading American mercenary hell bent on destroying their way of life and everything that they hold dear

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Seriously who are the terrorists in Afghanistan,

the peasent farmer defending his home with an AK47 left over from when they kicked the **** out of teh Soviets.

or the invading American mercenary hell bent on destroying their way of life and everything that they hold dear

The ones who the Taliban supply and make attacks at home and aboard.
Oh and the ones the Taliban hid and protected for extradiction, famous guy, has a beard, Osama something.

But tell me where exactly is the patriotism in destroying your own country's history, or banning things like kite flying?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Prohibitions_on_culture

Where's the patriotism in treating your women like property?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women

Or massacres?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Ethnic_massacres_and_persecution
These are not the actions of patriots but actions of religious zealots trying to impose their beliefs and laws through voilence and horrible abuses of human rights.

And I did mention that I didn't think the Americans where squeaky clean either right?
Or are you just trying to make another strawman?

Mahatma coat

You FAIL,

you Fail at grasping my point.

you cannot hold the Taliban to your set of rules anymore than they can impose their rules outside of Their territories and on you.

you wouldnt like it if they came down the street in the mornin and started tellin you what to do, well they dont like it either.


FREEDOM is about being free to do whatever, not what someone else says is OK

Mahatma coat

and exactly what did the Talibanfinance the Terrorists with? if you Follow the money it leads back to Saudi Arabia

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

FREEDOM is about being free to do whatever, not what someone else says is OK

That mean you're free to take other peoples freedoms?
Like the Taliban is doing?
Like you seem to think the NWO boogey man is trying to do to you?

How is denying peoples rights patriotic?

But please keep pretending that the war in Afghanistan isn't complicated it's doing wonders for your argument.

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and exactly what did the Talibanfinance the Terrorists with? if you Follow the money it leads back to Saudi Arabia

Money? Old Soviet weapons? Diplomatic protection? http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen.02/index.html

Mahatma coat

Money ? --- From The Saudis

OLD Soviet Weapons ? yeah like the Talliban didnt buy a ****load of guns off the Americans when they were still friendly to them.

Diplomatic Protection, yeah I think I'll go and get me some diplomatic Protection From Kim Jong Il 11

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Money ? --- From The Saudis

Or from opium production?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_insurgency#Financial_support

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OLD Soviet Weapons ? yeah like the Talliban didnt buy a ****load of guns off the Americans when they were still friendly to them.

Yea they could sell those as well. I don't remember saying the Americans didn't have deals with the in recent history. In fact I'm sure I mentioned they did.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Diplomatic Protection, yeah I think I'll go and get me some diplomatic Protection From Kim Jong Il 11

Did you actually read the link I provided?
Where it said the Taliban gave diplomatic protection to Osama bin Laden?

Still waiting for you to explain how denying peoples right is an act of a patriot.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'm always drawn back to the old statistic

Executions in Texas under the Bush administration
..............................V.....................................
Executions in Afghanistan under the Talliban


my point is,thats their way of life and culture, what makes us so feckin special that we can waltz in and say, stop, we dont like what you are doing, you must do it our way from now on.

I think a statistic is meaningless unless you put in context.

Reasons people were executed in Texas
...........................V..........................
Reasons people were executed the Taliban

I'm fairly certain Bush never executed a woman for committing adultery. Or Stoned a woman to death for adultery after she was raped.

You FAIL,

you Fail at grasping my point.

you cannot hold the Taliban to your set of rules anymore than they can impose their rules outside of Their territories and on you.

you wouldnt like it if they came down the street in the mornin and started tellin you what to do, well they dont like it either.


FREEDOM is about being free to do whatever, not what someone else says is OK

Mahatma this is the universal declaration of human rights as adopted by the UN, while yes I can see that the Bush administration has breached many of these, the Taliban have breached far more.

Money ? --- From The Saudis

OLD Soviet Weapons ? yeah like the Talliban didnt buy a ****load of guns off the Americans when they were still friendly to them.

Do you see many M16's in video's of the Taliban?

FREEDOM is about being free to do whatever, not what someone else says is OK

You mean like the freedom to drink alcohol, go to school, work, travel by yourself, fly kites, listen to music, practice different religions, oh no wait the Taliban proscribed all of the above on pain of death.

Really didn't think this one through did you Mahatma?

Nick_oliveri

Diogenes wrote: »

Mahatma this is the universal declaration of human rights as adopted by the UN, while yes I can see that the Bush administration has breached many of these, the Taliban have breached far more.

Ok, im going to Guantanamo this thread up!

On 10 June 2006, three detainees were found dead, who, according to the Pentagon, "killed themselves in an apparent suicide act".Prison commander Rear Admiral Harry Harris claimed this was not an act of desperation, despite prisoners' pleas to the contrary, but rather "an act of asymmetric warfare committed against us"

On 19 May 2002, a U.N. panel said that holding detainees indefinitely at Guantánamo violated the world's ban on torture and that the United States should close the detention center

The UN doing its job there, a joke.
Detention centres that hold innocent prisoners and "collateral damage" of the two "wars" breed hatred, religious and non religious insurguncy and we will see more and more. This is indefinate, and as soon as Barrack comes in with his new policies hes going to realize that he'll have to do a lot more to quell these manufactured "terrorists".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdallah_Salih_al-Ajmi

As of August 2003, at least 29 inmates of Camp Delta had attempted suicide in protest. The U.S. officials would not say why they had not previously reported the incident. After this event the Pentagon reclassified suicides as "manipulative self-injurious behaviors" because it is alleged by camp physicians that detainees do not genuinely wish to end their lives

Supporters of the detention argue that trial review of detentions has never been afforded to prisoners of war, and that it is reasonable for enemy combatants to be detained until the cessation of hostilities.

"Indefinately" is what they are saying there. War on Drugs/War on Terror.

One of the justifications offered for the continued detention of Mesut Sen, during his Administrative Review Board hearing, was:
"Emerging as a leader, the detainee has been leading the detainees around him in prayer. The detainees listen to him speak and follow his actions during prayer."

Diogenes wrote:

You mean like the freedom to drink alcohol, go to school, work, travel by yourself, fly kites, listen to music, practice different religions, oh no wait the Taliban proscribed all of the above on pain of death.

There is not much difference, both have broken international law and have murdered, detained and tortured inncocent people for a grudge. Not all GITMO detainees are inncocent mind you. But in a climate of lies how are to know whos telling the thruth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Ok, im going to Guantanamo this thread up!



The UN doing its job there, a joke.
Detention centres that hold innocent prisoners and "collateral damage" of the two "wars" breed hatred, religious and non religious insurguncy and we will see more and more. This is indefinate, and as soon as Barrack comes in with his new policies hes going to realize that he'll have to do a lot more to quell these manufactured "terrorists".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdallah_Salih_al-Ajmi




"Indefinately" is what they are saying there. War on Drugs/War on Terror.



There is not much difference, both have broken international law and have murdered, detained and tortured inncocent people for a grudge. Not all GITMO detainees are inncocent mind you. But in a climate of lies how are to know whos telling the thruth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

If you're trying to get me to get into a defence of Guantanamo Bay, you're not going to get it Nick. This forum is littered with my condemnation of the Bush regime. However if you'll notice that the current president elect has pledged to close Guantanamo. While the taliban are still mutilating sschoolgirls

Look the Bush regime is a morally reprehensible collection of Neo Cons, but they have been replaced by a democratically elected government. Do you think the Taliban would abide by an election result? (hint they haven't) Do you think the neo cons are going to engage in a campaign of terrorism now they aren't in power?

Nick come on, theres no comparisons. Comparing the USG's behaviour, no matter how reprehensible, with the Taliban one of the most brutal tyrannical, misogynistic, violent regimes in the world, is just ass backward stupid.

Nick_oliveri

Not really, Barack and his Administration can close what they want. The damage is done. I do not want you to defend anything. The question i posed was whos breeding them. Jihad is just one of the options that they can turn to when they have been tortured, detained or have their families killed etc. There is also insurgency and other options. The hatred is extended and multiplied.

Really it can just get worse. Excuse my grammar and spelling.

Nick_oliveri

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Not really, Barack and his Administration can close what they want. The damage is done. I do not want you to defend anything. The question i posed was whos breeding them. Jihad is just one of the options that they can turn to when they have been tortured, detained or have their families killed etc. There is also insurgency and other options. The hatred is extended and multiplied.

Really it can just get worse. Excuse my grammar and spelling.

You are aware that the Taliban have been abusing human rights long before America invaded right?

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Not really, Barack and his Administration can close what they want. The damage is done.

And now the damage isn't ? it's going to be undone. Thatcher did horrendous things to irish republicans Blair managed to heal these wounds.

I do not want you to defend anything. The question i posed was whos breeding them. Jihad is just one of the options that they can turn to when they have been tortured, detained or have their families killed etc. There is also insurgency and other options.

And what about those taliban who weren't detained punished or had their families killed. I mean the Taliban were in existence before the US arrived, and fought the soviets in the 80s, and continued existing throughout the 90s when no one was attacking them.

Never let logic, reality or the facts on the ground alter your worldview nick.

The hatred is extended and multiplied.

yes. yes it is. But blaming one side for this cycle is narrow minded.

Really it can just get worse. Excuse my grammar and spelling.

Yes it can, can you imagine what would happen to the women who took positions of power once the taliban got back in power?