This is in respons to a post in Muslim's Korean congratulations thread. http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58557 I decided to start a new thread for the response. Being realistic is not being naïve. What is naïve is claiming an objective view of the status of earth is naïve. Nobody said it was good or bad. This is simply the status of the world. Wake up, and smell the garbage. It’s everywhere. WITNESS THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE: America is the Ameriterrorist of the planet earth. Earth is dominated by Ameriterrorism with an iron fist. America, Great Britain, IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve, and large corporations. Terrorism as in forceful acts against human rights. We use our terrorism to take away their freedom of speech, freedom of anything. Killing. Mass media manipulation. Genocide. Economic processing zones. Killing. More killing. War. More killing. Coersion. Installing dictators friendly to western business interests. Illegalizing trade with companies that compete against the corporate giants that rule the earth. A western company can go to foreign soil to manufacture products for free trade. Companies within the country either may not trade products that compete with corporate giants or incur heavily taxed trade so the west can get their money either way. Will these terrorists leave these countries alone, and allow them use their own resources for their own profit? Would you give up billions and billions of yearly revenue for the sake of measly human rights? Not on your life. Might makes right. Golden rule: He who owns the gold makes the rules. Screw human rights. I want my money. The rich often say that poor people hate the rich because they are jealous, and deep inside, want what the rich have. This is false. Nobody with more than half a brain want any hand in such corrupt lifestyle, and total incompetence. What the rich have is total ignorance and evil. The rich are the biggest morons in the world. The rich claim that poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. This is also false. All poverty on the planet as we know it points directly at its source. The rich parasites with their invisible hand of capitalism in everybody’s pockets. Human rights violators. Exploitation. The root of all corruption is nothing more than a paradigm. As soon as you take on the paradigm, you have accepted the dark side. The paradigm of the dark side: Poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. Blame the poor for being poor. This is not to say that in order to amass wealth you have to exploit people, and commit underhanded atrocities. It is completely possible to build wealth without doing so. Exploiters just happen to be the typical rich. It’s way easier, and more fun if you enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on others. What these exploiters do not know can and will hurt the earth. I know. Let’s give a baby a live hand grenade, and see what happens to the block. Amassing money is a skill. So is dancing and playing foosball. Moreover, it is in many ways a precise science. One can be great at this science, and amass oodles and boodles of wealth. All great skills improve with the use of tools. One of the best tools is terrorism. A skilled scientist need not use any tools. But boy oh boy do better tools sure as hell make things much easier. Many rich people turn the blind eye to their exploitation. Many of them honestly are completely unaware of it. Many are totally unaware of their own corruption. Let’s take a look at the paradigm again: Poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. Blame the poor for being poor. We know this paradigm is untrue, so what is it? It is a rationalized justification for exploitative actions. Huh? This simply means that corruption is not about outright evil. It is many times not intentional. The brain has a great filtering mechanism. It tends to want thing or do things, and creates justifications for doing them meanwhile blocking anything out that could interfere with such processing. Huh? We do not really see ourselves as corrupt. We take on false belief to justify our actions. The thought never occurs to us that our actions are harmful. We are the good guys, we are doing nothing wrong, and we do not even think to question whether or not what we are doing is wrong. You do not have to believe this paradigm in order to become rich. This one: Poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. Blame the poor for being poor. ^ [] Yes that one right there. That --[] The false source of corruption that we previously discussed. The one that allows us to grab somebody’s head, stuff their face into the mud, and say things like: “Nobody is oppressing anybody. There is no oppression going on. What oppression? Nobody is inflicting pain and suffering on others. He put his own face in the mud. He is too lazy and apathetic to take is face out of the mud. Nope. No oppression here.” PROPOSITION: Just because one is adept at the skill and science of amassing money, it does not mean they are adept at the science of human rights and the way the world really works. It does not mean they are aware of what exploitation really is, and how they are exploiting people. It doesn’t make them aware the fact that all the poverty in the world points directly at those scientists of amassing money that are utterly clueless of the implications of their wealth. CAPITALISM IS GREAT Most people religiously stand by capitalism. He who makes the rules of the game caters the game to his advantage. Those that created and implemented capitalism used the following justification: Capitalism: Means of production in private hands. WRONG. Capitalism: Means of production in our greedy hands. RIGHT. There are a lot of people who disagree with the terrorism of Ameriterrorica. But they still stand by capitalism like it is a great economic system that = freedom for all. It is not. That is not to say that one cannot use capitalism to become one of them. As difficult as it sounds, there have been many under capitalism that have amassed great wealth. However, this is no different from amassing great wealth in a political/economic system of anarchism. It is not capitalism that allowed them to amass great wealth. It is their use of their skill at amassing wealth that allowed them to do so. Why is doing so easier in capitalist economies? This is true. It is easier. The fact that it is easier is what makes capitalism so bloody flawed. Capitalism simply makes things easier for few people to control more wealth than all the masses put together. It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a capitalist system that does not end in a plutocracy. Prevent corruption or don’t prevent corruption. This is still the end result. Therefore, people come up with other ideas such as communism. Not the greatest economic system out there, but a clear and present threat to the plutocracy. Solution? COMMUNISM = EVIL. Mass media manipulation. The slaves: “Hmm. Yes indeed. I HATE communists. Where are those bastards so I can kill them.” The capitalist plutocracy: “I love mass media manipulation that shape the brains of the public for our benefit.” Sure enough, capitalism is the means of production in private hands. This creates a dependence on the private hands. The result is supposedly competition leading to lower prices. This is a farce. It leads to higher prices, and lower standard of living. This is what academics teaches. Rich Dad (A totally corrupt mofo, but a financial genius with lots of wisdom to his credit) himself stated it clearly (paraphrase): ‘Academic institutions are training grounds for workers. They do not train people how to be rich. They train people how to work for the rich.” His poor dad a PHD was broke and in debt. His rich dad, an 8th grade dropout grew wealthier and wealthier. This simply means that the academic understanding of economics and capitalism are good, but not an understanding of wealth. The global economy is all the countries of the earth put together under one economy. The global economy is a capitalist economy. It is also an economy in which the plutocracy rules the earth with an iron fist inflicting destruction, terrorism, poverty, and the annihilation of human rights everywhere they tread. All for the sake of the endless growth of their affluent lifestyle which grows more and more affluent as the rest of the world grow more and more impoverished. As the gap widens, standard of living grows worse and worse as more and more are taken away from the public. All public services being slowly taken away one after the other. Education is already being taken away in many countries. -cs (Please somebody rewrite this article for me in perfect grammar. Thanks.)
Idle ignorant opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but just remember, opinions are like assholes ...everyone has one! But that doesn't make them right. Baron Max
Let's see. How the world works? Everything is nice and roses. The rich do not conduct terrorism. They are our friends that are not oppressing us, but helping us by giving us jobs to work for them. Opportunity. Thank you rich people. Is that more accurate?
I would volunteer to line-edit the article if the only errors were stylebook-related. But they go much deeper than that. Most strikingly, you have a dismal understanding of the meaning of the word "terrorism," and your grasp of the essence of "capitalism" is nearly as bad. I try to avoid being pedantic and assume that our bright readers can find the ideas buried under bad prose. But considering that fears of terrorism and doubts about capitalism are rampant throughout the world as well as right here on SciForums, in this case I feel that getting the words right is key to understanding and debating the issues. A consensus of scholarly (i.e. not government) definitions of "terrorism" is: Deliberate or negligent targeting of civilian populations and infrastructure With violence of military or paramilitary scope By a force unbeholden to the authority of a state and usually not even hierarchically organized for the purpose of negotiating surrenders or other treaties In order to extort or intimidate the target population and/or its leaders Into supporting goals that are so unpopular among the target population and/or the combatants' mainstream civilian population, and/or so poorly presented as to not even be well understood So that support is believed to be impossible to gain by any other means. Most of your examples of "terrorism" are simply not. Violence by soldiers and other government agents may be war, conquest, occupation, colonialism, etc., but they are not terrorism. Violence against soldiers, other government employees and government infrastructure rather than true civilians may be guerilla war, insurgency, civil war, etc., but they are not terrorism. Non-violent encroachment on other cultures by economics, religion, entertainment, immigration, etc., are not terrorism. It is important to adhere to these distinctions. So many people want to convince us to engage our resources in a fight against terrorism that we must agree on what we are fighting. Many American extremist leaders have already begun indoctrinating their flocks into thinking that peaceful--albeit unlawful--immigration and the use of drugs their grandparents could buy in pharmacies are part of the "terrorism" problem, and are insidiously diverting resources that might be used in the defense against true terrorism into quixotic social engineering schemes. As for "capitalism"... all right, distributing the control and resources of production out among the populace instead of concentrating it into a slow-responding, bureacracy-hampered central authority is one of the elements of a capitalist economy. But the central thesis of capitalism is that "capital"--the surplus produced by the economies of scale and division of labor that distinguish the industry of a civilization from that of a village--must be owned, controlled, spent, invested, etc., by the individuals who effect its production rather than removed and delivered to the collective care of an administrative class. It can thus be seen that the "evils" of capitalism do not accrue to the economic model of capitalism itself, but rather to a perturbation of it called the "corporation." The corporation is a type of centralization of control of capital that evolved after the Industrial Revolution, which leaves some of the rewards of production in the hands of the producers of the surplus--material wealth, ability to vote the stock in our pension funds, etc.--but concentrates the true control of that surplus in the hands of the wealthiest investors who, using the "Multiplier Effect" explained in Econ 101A, inexorably make themselves wealthier and more powerful. This in effect destroys the capitalist model by creating a new social class with centralized power, filling the same role as the aristocracy in pre-industrial economies. And it must be pointed out that the corporation--and the multiplier effect--is not a natural byproduct of capitalism, it had to be created in intricate detail as a fiction brought to life by... governments. The same central authority that created the power of the earlier generation of aristocrats. If you want to identify and then decide how to mitigate the ill effects of capitalism, don't muddle the discussion by setting up corporate despots as straw men symbolizing the entire theory of capitalism. And if you want to identify and then decide how to rid the world of terrorism, don't muddle the discussion by including neocolonialism, MTV, subversion of foreign elections, McDonalds, guerrilla attacks against warships, and the military attacks by the government of Israel and the more-or-less democratically elected Hezbollah wing of the Lebanese government on each other's civilians.
What are you talking about? Either stop goading and crying that this is merely an opinion or get lost. What exactly is wrong with the article? What is the truth that the article is missing? Perhaps it can be adjusted.
Fraggle put it more clearly than I could. And I'll goad as I please, thank you. Fraggle is more apparently more patient than myself. I get frustrated that I can't explain things clearly as I tend to tangetialize. Further, in the case of speaking to a young one, and perhaps to my own shame, I tend to model them after myself as a youngster and realize there's simply no pounding sense into their heads as they simply lack the life-experience/data to relate to what is being said. Fraggle's comments were IMO, and excellent courtique of your article. I personally do not operate as efficiently in that regard, and would break it down into line by line commentary, explaining my objections only halfway, each leading to a whole tangent of having to explain more... blah blah. Crap I don't have time for this shit anymore. Damnit. I want to do it, but I have to go.
You are a TOTAL fucking asshole. How's that for bad prose? Moron. Basically, you are saying that capitalism as an economic system itself is not a problem. The problem lies in the government sanction of the corporate entity. Unfortunately, everything you consider not to be terrorism is terrorism. As in terrorizing. War and conquest. Invasion through violence. Nonviolent manipulation and deciet using mass media and propoganda. It is possible to go by your definition of terrorism. It is not impossible to go by this definition of terrorism.
Total subjective stupidity. You really are a moron. Stating a case has nothing to do with pounding anything into anybody's heads or catering your delivery to anybody. This is not objective. 1. Expressing opinions in objective logic. 2. Objective interpretaion of the intentions of others without presumptions, and misunderstanding/misinterpreting/misrepresenting what others are saying. As exemplified in the Official Rules of Debate.
Except that we don't deliberately or negligently target civilian populations or infrastructure. The civilian deaths and damage, however reprehensible, are, for the most part (as can be expected in any war) accidental. I'm no fan of Bush, Inc., but even I don't consider them terrorists. Also, our actions ARE beholden to the authority of the state.
oh I see, didn't realize the particular moran I was dealing with or I wouldn't have bothered. stfu, you fucktard. if you value the rules of debate, then follow them brightboy. on, and stfu. lol. what a waste of time.
You're a waste of time get lost. All you do is use adhom to spport your claims. You are young therefore, I am right. Too young, too old, too poor, too rich. Either stating your case without bias, and present it properly, or get lost.
Yes. You do. A powerplant is a civilian target. A hospital is a civilian target. If you have ever been in the army you will notice that the army is structured to be independent of civilian infrastructure. That's because it is so easy to hit. Big fast juicy targets. Ever since WW2 total war has become the norm. That is a war that does not differentiate between civilian and military anymore. US Strategy is not different. It was the germans after all who first labeled the allied bombing campaigns with terror attacks.
WTF are you talking about? Civilian targets are our first targets. Do you know nothing about war? Not just war, but American war tactics? Americans are known for taking out food supply. Milk trucks going to schools for children. Kaboom. Any means necessary. Mass murder of civilians, and other tactics are typical American strategists. Ususally, they do not do it themselves, but fund dictators to do it. All the bad things that happen in communist countries supposedly because of communism are the result of American sabotoge missions. I'm not saying that communism is good. China is oppressive in its use of communism. The reason America does not like communism is because it screws up their profiteering. Therefore, they use terrorism starting with civilian mass murder. Henry Ford stated two classes of financiers: 1) Those who profit from war and use their influence to bring about war for profit 2) “constructive” financiers. Ford Motor, and many U.S. banks and corporations, belongs to the first group. Ford himself was decorated by Nazis for his service to them.
Lol. Uhm. Interacting with you is purely for amusement's sake, and honestly I couldn't care less where you'd like me to post or not. So when I feel like stating a case or bothering to be proper, I'll do so. Show you're worthy and I'll be impressed. I'm quite confident though, that you entirely ill-equipped to do so.
This idiot clearly admits to trolling. Interacting purely for amusement sake. Not partially. PURELY. That means zero for discussion sake. Like I said, you have no say. Get lost.
Bad strategy, young fool. And if you weren't so fucking worthless I'd be happy to converse with you, but alas, you are worthless and sad. You offer nothing of substance to discuss. Paranoid, mislead rantings of a megalomaniac without the goods to back it up. You're a study of futility, and a leech to boot - at least as far as I can tell from what you post. So again I'll say, just because I know you love to hear it: I'll post where I like, with no thanks to you whatsoever, you disgusting, fucktard of a wannabe human.
Changes nothing. I guess you didn't read what you said: Interacting with you is purely for amusement's sak This has nothing to do with my lack of substance. Otherwise, we would have seen proof of this. Therefore, you have 2 choices: Get lost or get loster.
It appears that the problem in this thread is that people want to live in a world of daisies and roses. Therefore, they do their best to defend it religiously. It is not a world of daisies and roses. It is a world of might makes right. A world of global terror. More specifically, Ameriterrorismica.
