Profile for Najosz Thjsza Kjras

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Ghosts of Stalin in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #3
quote:
Originally written by Zeviz:

These threads remind me of the mother in the movie "Good Bye, Lenin!" (News flash: The Cold War has been over for 15 years. No extra points will be awarded for goals scored after everybody has left the stadium.)

And even if the game was still going, introduction of non-native species was the least of the things Stalin did. Even if severe environmental damage is the only thing you care about, you have better examples, like [former]Aral Sea.

What I find most amusing is that, unless I am muddling my history here, all of this is from someone who fled the Soviet Union.

So his having a grudge might be, how you say, more reasonable.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Show me the muscle in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #3
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Karate, Tai-Kwon-Do, American football, football, basketball. I did gymnastics earlier, but that ended.
Rowr.

I bicycle, but not regularly. Sometimes I take strolls. That's more or less it.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Visions of the future. (was: It's my turn to spam.) in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #4
quote:
Originally written by Pez:

Your second pic, shouldn't that read "Jeff Vogel is..."?http://www.cusd.claremont.edu/~mrosenbl/spamcrate.gif
Don't be silly. Jeff Vogel only occasionally crops up, closes topics, and is annoying. *i is Big Brother.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
United 93 in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #114
quote:
Originally written by Mouthpiece:

or were installed as rulers by the people they freed.
I'm sorry to only respond to this part, but I've been busy. I'd like to address this in particular for a moment.

To people in the 11th century, the idea of a ruler being 'installed' by 'the people' would be, in a word, disgusting. The entire idea of the Christian leadership principle was that rulers were anointed by almighty God. Kings, princes, dukes, counts, baronets, the God-damn village reve - every authority implicitly relied on divine authority. Someone who took power by virtue of 'popular support' was at best a usurper and at worst a brigand. The alpha and omega of legitimacy was the Church. Period.

That this does not even occur to you makes me seriously doubt you have anything like the understanding of the period necessary to discuss it in this kind of depth. That you're in controversy against people who actually understand the era probably says more about your ideas than it does about theirs. Capisce?
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
My God can beat up your God! in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #30
quote:
Originally written by Yours Sincerely, The Boogyman.:

We all know what will happen if I sit here and tell everyone a specific person involved in world war II could kick their gods asses.
I should gouge out your eyes and piss in the sockets, you miserable nazi lapdog.

You are beneath the contempt of insects.

[ Thursday, May 18, 2006 17:56: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Was Russia's occupation of Eastern Europe after WW II justified? in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #3
quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

You know, it's become standard practice for so many people to try and skirt around big issues in today's world, particularly in the media and politics. It's refreshing to see someone who can confidently and openly assert their opinion on something which happened decades ago.
Of course. It takes a big man to question the judgement of a man dead and buried half a century.

EDIT: Here's what I think about 'justified'.

The Soviet Union lost tens of millions of lives, civilian and military. The Eastern Front was comparable in scale to the American east coast - and this is in the most compact, densely populated continent on Earth.

If it weren't for the Soviets, we would never have won the war, period. Hitler could have stomped the remainder of the Allies like cockroaches in Italy and France if he had a hundred more divisions to work with there.

That in mind, was what the Soviets did right? No, of course not. Turning nations into 'buffers' is obviously oppressive and inappropriate.

It is puerile to state that Stalin was evil; he was. It is puerile to declare the Soviet Union a force of iniquity in the world; it was. Both of these things are unarguable, and completely basic.

Considering, however, your unfortunate sympathy with the thesis of Western Betrayal - I have reason to wonder whether Stalin is on trial here.

If you're taking a swipe at Roosevelt and Churchill here, please bear in mind that the Soviets could have fairly handily crushed the Allied presence in Europe. Yalta was a deal with the devil, but it was one made out of necessity: the Iron Curtain didn't have to end in Saxony; it could have just as readily graced the Alps or the Seine.

Was the Russian occupation of Eastern Europe justified? No. Of course not. Was allowing the Russians to occupy Eastern Europe justified? Yes. It was that or the whole damn thing.

[ Thursday, May 18, 2006 18:06: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
The Big Club Theory in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #25
Evolution is an incontestible scientific fact established on voluminous evidence and rock-solid logic.

The specifics change frequently, but no scientist of biology worth listening to has serious doubts about the system itself.

And the doctine of 'intelligent design' is the most lazy and pathetic nonsense masquerading for science I have ever heard. 'Irreducable complexity' indeed - the various open riddles of the evolution of life should serve as impetuses to study and learning, not to hand-waving and declaration of divine intercession.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
My God can beat up your God! in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #6
quote:
Originally written by Miya:

My god takes on many forms, and in essence is everyone/everything. I doubt your god could battle all my gods at once.
I don't think you understand. We're talking about Mohammed Ali.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
My God can beat up your God! in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #1
My god is Mohammed Ali. I'd like to see you back that one up.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
United 93 in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #89
It's not an effort to ignore your request. I'm genuinely trying to figure out where my exact source is (it's been a while), and I'll have it up once I have.

And when I said it was a slip, I was being charitable. :P
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
The Big Club Theory in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #20
You scamps are just lucky you're too young to remember the Bending Ray.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
United 93 in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #87
quote:
Originally written by Mouthpiece:

Direct communion with God.
I'm well-documented as the Messiah. I expect you'll withdraw your citation now. :P
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
UN to Send Troops to Darfur in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #6
God, I'm glad you English majors aren't technically allowed to breed.

quote:
Originally written by d3m0n5L4y3r:

I'm just curious why it took so long.
What I'm curious about is why we still haven't sent any. -_-

[ Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:34: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
United 93 in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #84
Slarty has a degree at an accredited university. What are Moses's qualifications? :P

EDIT: I fully endorse Slarty's analogy. Although the timescale is a little off - try a Mexican invasion in the mid-23rd century.

[ Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:49: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
UN to Send Troops to Darfur in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #0
News here.

Thoughts?
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
United 93 in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #79
quote:
Originally written by Molybdenum:

quote:
I'd seriously question the motives of a Jesuit publishing that kind of nonsense - might he perhaps have credentials in culture war / clash of civilization garbage? I'd be genuinely surprised if he didn't have an agenda to peddle.
At least he is a historian with refereed publications to his credit what are your qualifications?

Madison Grant was one of the better-respected anthropological academics of his time, and his asinine historical theories lead directly to the Holocaust. Just because someone gets their research published by a respectable institution doesn't make their ideas valid. In fact, the fact that I, someone without any qualifications whatsoever, can readily point out reasons for which our Jesuit friend's thesis is a crock probably suggests it isn't as sturdy as you might like.
quote:

quote:
I'm getting craptired of arguing with people who refuse to substantiate their claims even when they are asked to. Frankly, Infernal, it makes me inclined to take everything you say with several extra grains of salt. Cite sources or go away.

I'm now firmly in this camp. Except I use the whole damn shaker.
I don't really believe in citing sources, because you can use them to prove just about anything. But I don't think that was directed at me anyhow, so.

quote:

quote:
The Crusades were motivated to some degree by religious fervor, but calling it a defensive, culture-based war is ridiculous. The political and economic motivators at work are far too heavy to discredit altogether.
This is a load of bolshoi. The crusades were incredibly expensive endeavours which cost many noblemen their fortune and ultimately their lives. A few people got rich but the vast majority (that returned) got nothing.

In the words of Urban II, "let robbers become knights." The European intellectual elite (such as it was) at the time considered the country overpopulated and rife with crime and generalized paucity. The belief in the Levant as a land of plenty, attainable through simple military service, was a strong motivator for at least the vast majority of peasant crusaders.

Yes, the Crusades cost a lot of noblemen their fortunes and lives (and commoners, too!), but that's hindsight talking. At the time, a good number of those who went into the first Crusade genuinely believed a land of milk and honey awaited them in the Holy Land. Dismissing that motivator out of hand is ludicrous - to say nothing of referring to one of the largest invasions in human history as a 'defensive war'.

...

re. the timeline: I'll see if I can find one for you. I can tell you that pitching it as a valiant struggle of the military against an entrenched bureaucracy is absurdly inaccurate, and scrambling fighter jets 'in defiance of orders' or whatever is insanely wrong (as in, doesn't happen in real life: getting one of them suckers off the ground costs more than you're liable to see in one place in your entire life, so wildcatting something like that would pose an intolerable risk in terms of both resources and human life.)

quote:
Originally written by Jewels:


If by 'not much of a stretch' you mean the repeal of the first ammendment. Then sure, I can agree with that. I see that very likely to happen in the forseeable future. :rolleyes:

Who needs a repeal when you do your best to sidestep the law? It's quite possible to simply dismantle the protections of the first amendment without actually going to the trouble of appealing it. I'd argue we're beginning to see that happen. And to be frank, I'd also argue that you don't care -- because you lead a sad, sick life of submissive subordination and the idea of non-oppressive authority is foreign and hostile to you.
quote:

Individuals will continue to abuse power, and they will continue to be brought to justice for it. But the chances of the government really turning into a dictatorship are about as good as TM being born again.

Not that I won't keep hopin...

Mother of all Freudian slips. ^_^

...

I completely concur with Zeviz. I think I need a shower.

[ Tuesday, May 16, 2006 14:36: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
United 93 in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #66
quote:
Originally written by Molybdenum:

Has anyone read "A Concise History of the Crusades" by Thomas Madden (there is a revised edition out now, not sure of the differences) - he is a University professor - Jesuit? who writes that the crusades were a response to 400 years of Muslim expansion (often violent) that had claimed much of what had been previously Christian - for instance Palestine prior to Muslim conquest was one of the most Christianized places in the entire world. The Crusades started as a defensive war against muslim expansion and a rescue mission for Middle East Christians.
My ass.

The Crusades were definitionally offensive. The flip side of that claim is that Islam had been in place fairly firmly for the areas Christendom 'lost' four centuries - and was the strongly prevailing religion and culture of almost every area the Crusades targeted, to the point that the culture of 'Middle East Christians' would have been closer to their neighbors than to their coreligionists in Europe.

The Crusades were motivated to some degree by religious fervor, but calling it a defensive, culture-based war is ridiculous. The political and economic motivators at work are far too heavy to discredit altogether. And the fact that the majority of the fighting in any successful crusade took place in a part of the world no Christian state had ruled over in centuries makes that claim all the more preposterous. It'd be like troops from a coalition of Muslim countries seizing Hungary - and calling it defensive, on the basis that the loss of it to Christendom was the product of centuries of aggression.

I'd seriously question the motives of a Jesuit publishing that kind of nonsense - might he perhaps have credentials in culture war / clash of civilization garbage? I'd be genuinely surprised if he didn't have an agenda to peddle.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Native Americans in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #92
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

quote:
Originally written by The Worst Man Ever:

[The ideology of the free market is fundamentally opposed to conceptualizing what you refer to as 'damage'. To the free-market economist, the market turning down, people losing their job, and a few hundred thousand more homeless cropping up in the streets is a natural and healthy part of the economy.
You learned this in a recent audience with the Pope of Free Market Economics, perhaps? Sure looks like a straw man to me.

It isn't a straw man. Free-marketers are genuine believers in the natural cycle of the economy - as in, they find it desirable.

A straw man would be saying that their ultimate goal was periodically destroying the economy and throwing millions of lives into turmoil. Which it isn't; that's just an unintentional (and, to be quite frank, generally unlamented) consequence of their policies.

quote:
Originally written by PoD person:

quote:
Originally written by Khoth:

quote:
Originally written by PoD person:

I do think, though, that Western Europeans were not committing some horrible crime against humanity in taking the Native Americans' land.
So if you want something someone else has, and you don't like the way they're using it, it's okay to take it for yourself by force?

Well, yeah. Isn't that the moral principle behind the graduated income tax? Heh, I was waiting to be called on that; however, if it's ethically acceptable to redistribute conspicuously consumed wealth, it's the same to redistribute conspicuously unconsumed wealth.

It sure is, if you're paying income tax directly to your neighbor and he gets to spend it as he pleases. If you're paying it to a government which is obligated to provide you certain services - not so much.

[ Tuesday, May 16, 2006 03:36: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
United 93 in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #61
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

The Crusades, in theory, were a territorial grab, not an attempted genocide. They weren't trying to wipe out Jews and Muslims; they were just trying to get them out of the Holy Land.

The supposed purpose of the Crusades and the actual purposes of the individuals involved were often at variance, as in the Fourth Crusade, which never actually made it to Israel and ended up sacking Constantinople instead.

I was under the impression that the Turks in the Middle East at the time of the Crusades were overwhelmingly Muslim.

If anyone has any information to contradict any of this, it'd be worth citing sources, because what I've just said is the way the story is normally told in the books that I've read.

EDIT: That book is not new. The copyright date on it is 2000.

It was a response to the rise of the muslim population in Europe, the first ones weren't called by the Pope, but rather by the church (priests, etc.), and therefore aren't counted among the crusades.

The Seljuk Turks were not muslim.

I really have no idea where you're getting all of this from. While violence against Muslims and Jews &c was indeed sanctioned by elements of the Church, it had little to no connection to the Crusades in Europe. I would actually hazard to guess none whatsoever.

The crusading era was four entire centuries. Counting interreligious strife during those centuries as Crusades is as ridiculous as counting the Yom Kippur War as part of Vietnam.

And while there have been few eras in history in which it served as an advantage to practice Judaism, the Muslims were for damn sure not at a disadvantage in most of Europe. The religion spread as it usually does - an admixture of semi-secular war and peacable conversion - as far as southern France and Russia, and made serious inroads into central Europe. The Christian world during the Crusades could be roughly analogized to the Muslim world now.

I really don't want to derail the topic, but I cannot abide by bad history and honestly, it seems the only way you could get any worse is by trying to convince everyone the pyramids had something to do with all of this. :\

EDIT: And the Seljuks were too Muslim! The Sultanate of Rum was Muslim more or less from the word go (the mid-11th - before the first Crusade), and it was as far west (read: as distant from the Arab world) as possible.

[ Tuesday, May 16, 2006 03:29: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Post Chat Snippets Completely Out Of Context in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #28
While the image itself certainly wouldn't support that - I am no artist - it has always been my personal conviction that the little German in the comic is making love to the gas tank.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
United 93 in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #50
quote:
Originally written by Jewels:

Basic theme of the movie-

It is a chronological pictation of 'what happened when' on United 93, in the Air Traffic Control rooms, in whatever office is in charge of overseeing all airspace flight over the US(and where the order to stop all flights came from), in the news, and in the military command centers in charge of scrambling fighters on the east coast. It ended when U93 crashed.

Of course most of what happened on United 93 is left to the movie producers discression, but there were many real phone calls made from the plane which they based it on.

I would think that everything else that happend on the ground is reasonably accurate and verifiable within 'poetic license'. But I am taking it all with a grain of salt.

**SPOILERS?**
According to the movie, the military attempted to scramble fighters soon after (forgive my memory) the first or second plane hit the towers but were refused clearence by the FFA, they then scrambled their planes anyway in defiance of the order, but the planes took off on a standard scramble coordinate by mistake heading east over the ocean and then had to get clearence to even turn around. It did say that the military were not even notified that U93 was a hijacked plane untill 4 minutes after it crashed.
/end spoilers

Didn't happen that way. In fact, this 'interpretation' of events is particularly sickening - taking the piss out of the bureaucracy for the benefit of the executive branch is a particularly inaccurate portrayal of how things happened on 9/11.
But, of course, it's a portrayal inaccurate in a way that marches perfectly with the fiendish prejudices of U93's target audience, so what can you do.
quote:

quote:
Originally written by Drew:
Feel good about the NSA having the calling records for all phonecalls made in the US from three out of the four major phone carriers? Kind of tramples our right to privacy under the Ninth Amendment. But of course, those people outside of any public oversight would never use those records for purposes other than fighting terrorism, right? Of *course* you can trust the current administration, right? Right...
I, in truth, do not care that the government has my phone records. I'm an open person by demeanor, and would probably enjoy being on a show like Big Brother(actually Survivor's more my type). I am not concerned with my privacy and I have nothing to hide anyway. What 'other purposes' should I be worried about?

Surveillance of the citizenry is the first step towards the breakdown of the rule of law. States which routinely practice it also do things like interfering with the personal affairs of opposition figures. The government doesn't like a public gathering you plan to hold? Well, conveniently enough, they just happen to have all of your personal information - bills, mortgage, bank accounts, and, if worse comes to worse, they know when you'll next be on an interstate miles away from the nearest settlement.
I know you conservatives have this weird-ass S&M thing going on with the government, but trust a scholar of history on this one - they ain't got no safe words where we're headed.
quote:

quote:
Originally written by TM:
With 9/11, it's true that a few evil men are responsible for the grievous acts.
At first I was surprised that you agreed that the terrorists were 'evil men'. Then I remembered that you think I'm evil. :P The movie does a beautiful job of portraying the hijackers, not as evil, but as devout men of the Muslim faith. They did not believe they were evil or doing evil, instead they thought they were doing the will of God. It does not make what they did any less horrific, but their motivations, imho, were not as malicious as it seems. Their actions are not that surprising considering they hold to the Old Testament, but not the New. God calling for the death of nations was not unheard of.

Has it occurred to you that that is evil, more or less in a nutshell? Even if they had been some kind of fundamentalist Christian crazy instead of some kind of fundamentalist Muslim crazy, they'd still have killed thousands of people to no tangible gain.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
United 93 in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #49
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

<lyrics to Rock Me Amadeus removed>
>_<
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
United 93 in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #7
STFU
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
United 93 in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #5
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

By design, the US military is almost never allowed to engage in actions on or over US soil. This is a part of maintaining civilian control of the military, which in my opinion is crucial to maintaining our form of government. Nations whose militaries turn their attention to what goes on inside their borders, as opposed to outwards, become dictatorships real quick, and I'm not for that.
This is a fairly antiquated worldview, IMO. While I agree with the rest of your post - that more security would require trading in liberty, and nobody wants that - I would propose that on 9/11, the military would have essentially been working as a SWAT force by interdicting hijacked jets.

The civilian decision-makers would naturally decide when that SWAT force is called out - but the problem is that Bush & co had been gutting counterterrorism efforts for the last year, and so there was no effective intellectual infrastructure to respond to 9/11.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
United 93 in General
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #2
quote:
Originally written by Jewels:

After experiencing this powerful movie last night, it got me thinking about how unprepared we were for an attack.
We will never be prepared for an attack. Yes, we need to take certain precautions, but it will ultimately be necessary to put an end to the factors that lead to attacks. They are many and complex, and people are going to argue with me over what they are, so I'm not going to get into this unless you really want to.
quote:

Something I thought a little about immediately after 9/11, but seeing the portral of our millitary unable to even get clearence for it's fighter jets to take-off brought it much more to light how bad the situation was.

I haven't seen U93 - nor, to be honest, do I plan to - but I'm certain that's not accurate; 'our military' didn't even attempt to scramble fighters until long after the last plane crashed. Authorization was not an issue there.

Would you mind giving a synopsis of the film? I have a lurking suspicion here.

The story of 9/11 was one of extreme executive incompetence - and U93 in particular was average people overcoming the ideologically-motivated impotence of the government in one of recent memory's direr hours. That would have been a compelling story. The problem is that the target audience for a film about 9/11 is not going to like that story - so, I would think, significant elements of the actual history would be toned down, removed, or even reversed.

I don't like speaking in ignorance, though, so I can't exactly say how well the film conforms to my suspicions. But...
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00

Pages