Continued discussion from https://www.tfmetalsreport.com/comment/64264#comment-64264
9/11 and Nukes
You and others don't make a good argument for your own views with a H*** F**KING S**T type of reply. I expected something better from you. I'm beginning to think there's a few fried scope dopes around here or people who need to get past the age of 15 in a hurry. At least I have the guts to bring my 3-sigma views to the table.
Ok. You don't like the shock and brevity of my response to your complete lunacy??? We need to get past the age of 15?
Please wake the fuck up. Pardon the candor but your fucking idiocy brings out the fucking f-bomb dropper in me. Who is the fucking impulsive child that wants to start dropping nukes because he's a nationalistic xenophobe that eats every bit of bullshit the MSM spoon-feeds him???
Well hoorah you are an idiot neo-con that wants to smash the rest of the world into submission. I have to maintain some perspective here, because I have come out as a reformed neo-con that voted for Bush twice. I am by no means a born again liberal. The left/right paradigm we are presented today is utter nonsense. I consider myself a libertarian constitutionalist. A Ron Paul supporter all the way.
When you refuse to examine elementary science regarding the most important event in our lifetimes, before WISHING for a damn NUCLEAR attack against another sovereign country, I feel there is little to discuss. Hence the brief and dismissive tone of my previous post. You call me out for not wanting to dignify your idiocy?
Sorry Turd, 4 fingers of whiskey and a total asshat lead to me breaking the rule. Moron is my first ignore and it won't happen again.
This post is a reply to cpnscarlet's "Am I all alone? - 9/11 response" post:
Just looking back at the wild thread this weekend. I am somewhat surprised at the response to my general view that our military response after 9/11 was woefully poor and should have included a nuclear strike. I'm certainly not surprised that many would disagree, but find it "strange" that with this crowd, it seems maybe two of you share the same view.
I still think that the attack on 9/11 (I do not think it was an "inside job") was severe enough to warrant a particularly gruesome show of force. Not so much for retaliation, but to make the world understand that the nuclear deterrent would now be extend to rogue states and state-supported terrorism. Also, it most likely would have prevented a need to send troops across the globe as the "axis" states would have reigned in their behavior.
Now if you disagree, is it because 1) nukes should never be used, 2) it would only have escalated the situation, or 3) something else?
Not that I mind holding an ultra-contrarian view, I just would like to know what the opposing side thinks.
Let's say we have magical nukes that can home in to the cities of all those who are really (and directly) responsible for 9/11 attacks and all you have to do is push a button to launch all off them. Would you push the button?
That really blows my mind Stephanie....as my Dad was stationed in the Philippines when the bombs were dropped on Japan. He just turned 90 last monday. Care to know what he thinks about those civilians getting "nuked"?
The responses were "flaming" Scarlet? Wow...
This is my reply to this post:
Your comment was not deleted, it was moved, and please move any further discussion on this subject there as well, including any gripes you have about said topic being created and the moderation thereof. I'm otherwise not going to continue making justifications to you guys. The forums are there for a reason. Please use them. Thank you (and good night!).
Not exactly true. My post was deleted, not moved. I posted again here after I saw the interdiction to post in the comments.
I never thought I'd see this on this blog. I'm shocked and very disappointed.
Defending outrageously offensive material while banishing/censoring those who oppose that kind of garbage.
Gut check time Turd. This is bullshit.
And to think I'm one of the biggest supporters of this blog around here and everywhere else...
I personally moved the comment over. But I think what happened is that I saw the duplicate and thought I had accidentally posted it twice and removed one. I did not realize that you were trying to repost it here.
OK. This explanation makes sense to me.
Bay of Pigs. As I finish off the last of my whiskey, let me thank you again for your rational perspective. I have visited the museum in Hiroshima, I have seen the pictures after the bomb hit, the wax sculptures of zombified mothers/fathers/children wandering around with skin hanging off of bone. I have witnessed many atrocities of war that morons like scarlet would attribute to collateral damage.
Getting sent to my room makes me sick. An ignorant asshat can condone the nuking of a country "in a pleasant tone" but I get censored for saying FUCK!
I had a feeling this was coming. After Turd made the mistake of coming out publicly as a 9/11 denier. I still have a great deal of respect for certain contributors, but in all honesty I have disdain for any 'intelligent' person that 'believes' an obvious lie. Here it comes again, something I have tried to avoid........ WAKE THE FUCK UP TURD!!! 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sometimes the truth is difficult. That's apart of being a man. 1 video, just the tip of the iceburge. Literally I came from the opposite end of the spectrum, I don't care if you own a worldwide frozen yogurt conglomerate, the time for burying heads in the sand is over!!!!!!!!!!!
but then act with violence with your words.
How does this phenomenon work? Words peel skin off bone? My priorities? Seriously Steph?
Read my posts. Naivety is no excuse. I believe you are a good person and have good intentions, but you know what they say about the path to hell? Having seen mutilated bodies, half dead babies, things you wouldn't wish upon your worst enemy, I can tell you fascist partisan chicken-hawks like scarlet are the worst kinds of people.
Should my reaction be surprising? Boo hoo, I called him names. Guess what. Turd is right (about this). The end of the great Keynesian experiment is upon us. Blood lusting sycophants like scarlet are the biggest threat to society. People that ABHOR kneejerk reactionary NUCLEAR attacks on sovereign countries are NOT the ones needing to be censored.
Not to beat a dead horse, but, I have seen the horrors of war. I have changed my paradigm. I have faced the hard truths. I WILL NOT BE TREATED LIKE A F***ing CHILD!
Okay, I hear you. But flipping out? I did respond respectfully to the offensive post. No swearing at all. Go back and read my comments. And thank you for your efforts. I do appreciate them.
I appreciate your comments and thoughtful analysis.
Please do not let the behavior of Stephanie limit your postings.
I am a bit unclear on why you are moving the comments of these gentlemen to this thread and off the main page.
It makes it more difficult to review since you are dislocating the original thread.
It appears that I share some of the exposure to violent situations that the other two gentlemen have been.
It is equally clear that your view of "violence" is alot different than men who have had to pick body parts up off streets, pull bullets out of body cavities, and attempt to save a child's life or limb from metal projectiles. There are times where your behavior pattern cause me similar frustration and irritation to these gentlemen tonight. After being involved with this blog and the prior, there was really no time where I could not filter the comments.
If someone is incensed, they can scroll on. If someone is upset, is it Turd or you?
If it is you, then I would suggest that a higher standard of review may be required by TF.
It's his blog, and I might be able to understand if he wants the discussion to go a certain direction.
However, if you are editing the thread sequence, you need to be judicious in using that option.
In fact, I have observed you using that option nearly every weekend when I am on and you are on this blog simultaneously. I would like to urge you to please to clarify with the blog owner prior to using that option.
The blog is still deserving of your support. This has been a really tough weekend and lots of offense taken and given. I'd love to engage some of the points Turd made in starting this thread but choose not to just because so many have chosen to attack him instead of persuade him.
Quite a number have chosen attack instead of persuasion and emotions have just generally run really high. A few posts look suspiciously like they were designed to provoke and timed for effect.
I was shocked by cpnscarlet's cavalier attitude toward the use of nukes. So shocked in fact I had to sit back and wonder how someone could hold a view so terrifyingly callous compared to my own understanding. He gave a few clues, Vietnam being one of them.
I don't know if you recall but the big communist boogey man in the '60's was the "Domino Theory" which is just another way of saying "If we don't fight them 'over there', we'll have to fight them in our own malls, fields and back yards".
It was BS then and it's BS now. Vietnam wasn't about communism, it was about an excuse to funnel a whole lot of tax dollars into the multi-national military industry's coffers. We could have won that war within any six month period beginning with a decision to win. The decision was never made, because winning wasn't the goal. I doubt cpnscarlet has come to that conclusion and I doubt he ever will unless someone takes the time to build a factual case. Not easy I know. General Westmoreland's own statements about his involvement in Vietnam (only admitted late in life and way after the fact) are a decent starting point. I bet cpnscarlet doesn't know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened, and that it never happened has been confirmed by the very ones that pretended it did at the time.
I suspect cpnscarlet still believes the Domino Theory was valid and that today's eternal "war on terror" is valid too. I don't agree, but in one single respect I see a point.
The point I see has to do with these interminable wars with no defined goals and no exits. We need to get back to our Constitution and force our politicians to honor it and quit committing US troops without a declaration of war.
If there is a legitimate threat to this nation, there should be a national discussion of it, a congressional declaration of war on it, followed by committing every resource we have to its fast and furious destruction. But no...not with nukes. And this BS of going to war for corporate interests is just that. No American blood should be committed to anything less than a threat to the security of US citizens on US soil.
crap...I got off on a ramble and drifted.
I guess my hope is that assets to the community like you won't get so offended over things they up and leave. I think that's a win for chaos.
I strenuously disagree with cpnscarlet's take, but I'll defend to the death his right to hold whatever conviction his knowledge level allows him to.
And try to see things from Stephanie's view too. Every time she does her job she's going to step on someone's toes. It's the nature of the work.
I think Turdville will pull back into the freewheeling but generally respectful mode of disagreement that has pretty much prevailed to this point. Fact is, if we don't, moderation is going to have to get much more heavy handed or we just descend into typical mud slinging internet blog and if that happens we might as well go somewhere else. If that's all we want there are plenty of places to indulge already.
As an aside, I gave my adult life to the US Army. Waking up was the most horrific process I've ever been through because I had to come to terms with the fact that someone had used a young man's patriotism to motivate him to do things that were diametrically opposed to what he really believed in. It almost destroyed me to discover that "service" I was truly proud of was nothing more than being a really cheap mercenary, gladly roving the world shooting brown people for the benefit of a very few. I was actively participating in the destruction of everything I stood for in my own heart. I'm still a patriot. I always will be. But my dedication is to a nation as our founding fathers envisioned it. Not this caricature we have now.
Point is, I "woke up" from a place not far from where I perceive cpnscarlet stands now.
It can happen :) It takes time, and it takes a willingness to examine long held and deeply cherished beliefs. It's really, really hard. During the process those that attacked me delayed my progress because in recoiling from the attack I hardened myself to new information. It was persuasion from those who could already see that helped lead me out of the dark. Hopefully, those of us who claim to "see" can also muster a generous helping of grace toward those who can't yet see what we do.
anyway...bugged you enough.
I appreciated reading your comments.
I have many veterans in my family who served in WW2 (military intel), US Army (pre-Vietnam), and Desert Storm (M1 Tank driver).
I have also personally assisted as the families of WW2 veterans came to terms with their "waking up" period.
Your discussion about the "waking up" hit home with me too.
My guess is that I am a bit younger than you, possibly by a whole lot, but you remind me of my uncle who served in US Army. He woke up about 25 years ago, but then moved on with his life as he settled in with my aunt and they built their family.
Your patriotism is alot more than most people under age 40. One generation had to serve when they were 18. The other generation thinks service is signing a Selective Service card and turning it into a US Post Office. There are big differences and the strange thing is that these demonstrators in NYC think they are doing their patriotic duty. They've never had to carry a bullet, lace a boot, or even button a khaki once. It's really pretty hard for me to see any credibility there when they've not shed their family's blood (or frankly their own blood) over the principal of self-governance.
More importantly, it is men like you who have. Therefore, I would rather see thoughtful men of service in societal leadership in the United States. I'm pretty sick of the Harvard or Yale graduates who work for Goldman Sachs telling me what to go do.
I'm also sick and tired of the proletariat positioning being crammed down on me. Financial repression sucks and it's time to get rid of it!
I'm not inclined to hold the fact that many of those protesters haven't served in the military against them. I honestly don't know what will eventually become of this movement, but for now I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. They are at least out there doing something. I'm not surprised to see the Alinsky types showing up, but I'm also not convinced they'll win the day either.
I spent several hours over the first two days of the protest watching their live feed and they spent a lot of that time trying to define themselves. It looked to me like an honest effort, but their lack of knowledge about specifics and exactly who the real enemy is was a little disheartening.
I take a bit of encouragement at knowing that the Boston and Chicago branches of the protest that have now sprung up have targeted FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS! Woo-hoo! Looks to me like they're getting warmer, not colder :)
I wish I could go to NY and counter some of the idealism with a bit of monetary/libertarian education...I hope someone will. The collectivists are sure striking while the iron is hot.
The PTB are GOING to attempt to steer ANY movement that threatens their control. They've done it with the Tea Party and I cringe to think that the wider public has been led to believe that Palin actually represents the majority of the Tea Party.
Anyway, for now I'm happy to see them rattling the PTB's complacency a bit, and I hope the movement gets better educated as it goes along.
Time will tell. Somebody needs to educate them about money first and foremost. IMO :)
In the other main thread, it appears that some of the demonstrators are popping up on this board.
I attempted to challenge them with a question about the Federal Reserve Bank.
I specifically selected that question in order to make them think about the difference between fascism and crony capitalism versus true free market dynamics and sustainable true money.
Anyone born after 1970 has a different view of money than those born prior to 1960.
If these are university kids from New England and East Coast liberal colleges, then they were born after 1990.
Their world view is shaped more by 9-11 than by events prior to 1995. Therefore, they do not recall Desert Storm, Challenger, the dot-com bust, the 1987 crash, nor even the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union.
If they are students of Chomsky, then they are decoupled from the reality that is socialism's agrarian proletariat.
CPN, I have the impression that you are a believer (I can't remember details but I know you've made Christian references in your posts) and it distresses me greatly when I see fellow christians, who I suppose believe that Jesus is the Prince of Peace, let their political (or pragamtic or whatever) beliefs supercede their Christian ones when it comes to war. Not that you brought it up, but I want to make the point that you really cannot make reference to Christianity in some posts and then support wars of aggression in others. You are setting a bad example, my friend.
It just doesn't hold water if you are a follower of Christ to bomb innocent civilians to oblivion.
I implore you to read the following articles and take a quick look at the videos I have posted below.
Cheers, and I hope that you genuinely, prayerfully reflect on whether such a great military response, with such destruction and vengeance and death of innocents, is characteristic of what we as Christians ought to support.
From the articles below:
"There is an unholy desire on the part of a great many Christians to legitimize killing in war. There persists the idea among too many Christians that mass killing in war is acceptable, but the killing of one's neighbor violates the sixth commandment's prohibition against killing. Christians who wouldn't think of using the Lord's name in vain blaspheme God when they make ridiculous statements like "God is pro-war." Christians who try never to lie do so with boldness when they claim they are pro-life, but refuse to extend their pro-life sentiments to foreigners already out of the womb. Christians who abhor idols are guilty of idolatry when they say that we should follow the latest dictates of the state because we should always "obey the powers that be." Christians who venerate the Bible handle the word of God deceitfully when they quote Scripture to justify U.S. government wars. Christians who claim to have the mind of Christ show that they have lost their mind when they want the full force of government to protect a stem cell, but have no conscience about U.S. soldiers killing for the government."
and further down:
The early Christians were not warmongers like so many Christians today.
...After all, they had some New Testament admonitions to go by:
- Blessed are the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9)
- Live peaceably with all men (Romans 12:18)
- Follow peace with all men (Hebrews 12:14)
There is nothing in the New Testament from which to draw the conclusion that killing is somehow sanctified if it is done in the name of the state.
Christianity and War:
During WW2, the US goverment produced a series of films why Americans should support the Wars. They hired Frank Capra, the maker of It's a Wonderful Life, who had the ability to touch hearts and move emotions. He wrote the film "Why We Fight: Prelude to WAr" The message in the film is that America is good and that we must send our young men and women into harms way to defend our liberties.
Another one was Victory at Sea. Indeed, they are well produced efforts for their time and use the best music writers of our time to help imbed patroitic fever into the subconscious of anyone who watches it. These are just two great examples of the US proproganda machine and has effected millions of people and their thoughts on our foreign efforts. These same thoughts still guide our foreign policy today and why so many people think that we have destroy the enemy. During the democrate presidential primary, Hilary Clinton in an interview about Iran and their nuclear development, said "We Will Bomb Them Back to the SToneAge" That should come as no surprise because before George Bush, Bill Clinton launched more first attacks on nations than any other president in history.
The World Wars were typical garden variety European and Asian bloodpaths that were going on for 1000's of years before the USG got involved. It was not until USG got involved that they were full fledged World Wars. Hitler was horrific, and evil and so were the rulers of Japan and Italy. But FDR decided to ally with the worse of them all Joseph Stalin who killed more people than all three of them combined.
Anybody who studied history in an a US school with goverment sponsored textbooks, 99% of us, learned that Pearl Harbor is under the impression that we were hapless innocent victims who were attacked because they didn't like our lifestyle. Anybody who says different, most notably Ron Paul, is called irresponsible. Well, it seems the brainwashing by the US goverment was almost 100% effective. Some of us fall through the cracks, realizng goverment is not our friend, it's a cleverly disguised predator. The idea that we are attacked because others are jealous of our way of life is a total pervision of the real reasons behind the immense anger at the USG (US goverment) I'm American and proud of it but I have no affiliation with the US Goverment. America and USG are two very different entities.
The belief in global protection and that we have global interests, that we have a right to go anywhere outside our home country as citizens that we are no longer under the protection of our home country. When we travel abroad we go at our own risk, and if you do not like risk, you should not go. Hiking in the mountains of Iran is not such a good idea. This idea of global protection for Americans sprang up during the Barbary Wars, which were fought after the U.S. Goverment was founded. In those days merchant ships were sailing through Atlantic and Mediterranean waters that belonged to Islamic powers for centuries. The moslems were levying a tax on them. Sometimes when Americans refused to pay the tax, the ships and crews were captured. The owners of the ships asked the new US Goverment for help, and the goverment sent the Navy to fight the Moslems. The Moslems were then called Pirates. TodayMoslems who are still fighting the USG are called terrorists. The Barbary Wars set the precedent for risking the lives of soldiers, sailors and airmen to bail out people who gambled and lost. Once that precedent was set, power seekers were quick to use the armed forces whenever the opportunity arose.
It's only in recent years that India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Macau, North Africa have been liberated from a violent and deathly grip of the British Empire. This lasted thousands of years and it's only the last few years that they have experienced freedom. Yes, they are still angry at the 1000's of years, and relatives that fell victim to British power. The USG is a relative newcomer to this game and the fact that we occupy 140 countries with our military is not well received by other countries. We wouldn't be happy if China or Russia began sending troops to Panama, why would they be happy about our policy of global domination.
This naive belief that we were attacked on 9/11 for our beliefs or we were attacked in Pearl Harbor for the same is a result of USG propoganda and brain washing. History tells a much different story and whether or not it was a result of some inside help, there were most certainly foreigners involved. We call them terrorists because they use unconventional weapons simply because they do not have the money to pay for the modern war weapons that the United States have. This is simply they way they are waging war on us. 911 did one thing well. It served to create a patriotic frenzy that enabled the US to go to war. Whenever we have any type of call for peace, watch out, that's when something will happen to make the American people feel angry and that we should take out our anger on some innocent civilizations 10 thousand miles away. The call for nuking other nations is based on propaganda, fear, and anger and a complete lack of understanding of history. And that's unfortunately why Ron Paul will have a tough time getting elected because the mass of people are still asleep and victims of their own subconscious fear and anger.
It's hard to belief that we are having this discussion on this forum with others who are interested in liberty, free markets and the return to the gold standard. I guess my only consolation prize is that as long as individuals feel the solution to our problems is continued war, we will see gold and silver go through the roof. And it really, it's not the consulation I am looking for. I'd much rather see freedom and liberty and opportunity abound rather than buying gold and silver to save my soul. But it would be naive of me to belief that there will be a reversal in this trend as long as we continue on this route to dominating others through very expensive weapons. If Ron Paul does get elected, which is only a pipe dream, I might be selling my precious metals.
I highly recommend everyone get a copy of the consitution and bill of rights and read it. Freedom of Speech is not extended on to private property. This is a privately payed site owned by an individual by all appearances seems to support free markets, liberty and the right for others to exist and go about their business without our intervention. The constitution does not guarantee anybody the right to use a private forum for their hate speech.
The United STates of America is not a democracy and never was. It is a republic. That's how the founders set it up. A democracy is mob rule which will never work. It was supposed to be a representational republic. I don't see any reason that the Turd should run his site as a democracy. A true adult is very rare and is nothing to do with age.
Turd has a vision and a fine one!! I hope he begins to expand his writing beyond short term charts and continue his insights into current affairs and geopolitics. I think he has an untapped talent and I would encourage him to explore it. It might take some bravery in light of all the attacks on him. But I'll continue to support him both morally and financially.
GDH - Thanks for the post. I understand where you are coming from, but obviously, I hold a different view. I simply take the Bible as a whole, both OT and NT. There is still a time for peace and a time for war (Eccl.) We must be prepared to engage in both if we are to include ourselves as part of any state. And there are no war atrocities, war is an atrocity, bit still one that God has ordained and will do so again. And the worst collateral damage the US has incurred in war is no different from God's commands to destroy not only other warriors, but women, children, and infrastructure as well at many times in the OT. OT or NT, human nature hasn't changed. There will be aggression and wars will continue to pop up around the world.
Now I know there are Christians that believe that the OT has been completely superseded and should no longer be considered part of the cannon. If that's where you are, I don't think I'm going to change that view. It sure isn't mine.
Now to the technicality of a military response. I am a veteran and was an officer, so I went through the typical professional military courses a company grader (captain) would have. History teaches (me at least), that if we aren't prepared for war, we will have to fight one. And when the war starts, the more brutal the response, the shorter it will be. In particular, the nuclear bombs used on Japan were needed to break the will not only that of the Japanese gov't, but the will of a brainwashed people. Don't forget - they believed the Emperor was a god and their death defending him was met with glory in the afterlife. Sounds familiar doesn't it? So by the awful act of dropping those nukes, the populace was brought to surrender. This terrible event ended the war at that point while the option of continuing a land war to capture the Japanese islands was avoided. That invasion would have mobilized the whole population to fight despite that fact that the Japanese were quickly running out of material. The bombs saved many more lives than they took. This is the perverse calculation of war.
Taking all these together, my Biblical beliefs, life experience, knowledge of history, etc. I stick to my idea. We should have responded after 9/11 with awful force - or even just a display of that force (a few 60 MT bombs set off in some wilderness near Kabul). This would have quickly ended the jihad and saved many lives and much treasure.