Ur bang on target il give you that. We are a simple and loving type of folk
My full name is Samakh Molotov and I am Russian. We are very complex and hate everybodee on this planet except ourselves.
russkaya dusha
ChickenTikka Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bodhisattva Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Chi Paul Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > >>>By siding with shady characters at all to > > fight > > > a perceived greater evil it’s like kicking > the > > can > > > down the road, it doesn’t eradicate the > problem. > > > > > > > > Nope, the problems of Communism and Naziism > are > > > essentially eradicated as serious threats to > > the > > > world, particularly when compared with 30 > years > > > ago. Your comment is just factually false. > On > > > balance the world is simply a much better > place > > > with significantly greater populations living > > in > > > freedom that at any point in human history. > > > Progress is being made, not kicked down the > > road. > > > > > > And your stereotype that Americans are > obsessed > > > with military power and tactics (whatever > that > > > means) reveals much more about you and your > > biases > > > than it is a realistic commentary on the > > average > > > American. I understand the populist > scapegoat > > > attraction of the “blame America first and > > > foremost for everything” mentality but that > > > doesn’t make the rhetoric any less lacking > > > seriousness. > > > > > > I would say that the proportion of GDP and > > government revenue that are directed towards > > military spending. The proportion of the > American > > population that is directly employed in the > armed > > services and indirectly employed in the defense > > industry. As well as America’s history of > > overseas military engagement’s are all very > strong > > factual arguments in support of Eoghan’s > statement > > regardless of where you believe such a > statement > > originates on the political spectrum. > > > > Secondly, I don’t see how an ideology by itself > > can pose any threat, thoughts and belief mean > > nothing without action. It is what people do in > > support of such an ideology which constitutes a > > threat to humanity. In that way fighting for > > democracy and liberty poses the same threat to > > freedom as fighting for fascism or Islam > because > > either way you’re using coercion to force > others > > to comply with your ideology. > > > As for all you flatfooted softies, when India and > I take over the world we will not hesitate utterly > dominate and crush the rest of you. Hinduism, an > old and venerable religion, understands humanity > very well. Their two principle gods, Shakti and > Ganesh, represent the worship of wealth and power > respectively, in my opinion. While liberal > western thinkers like to pretend hypocritically > that the pursuit of money and power is a vulgar > evil thing, Hindus know that pursuing the best > interest of your family through the pursuit of > money and power is the most rational thing one can > do. > I ain’t shook my gun still go bang son.
The only French thing about me is my arrogance 
(apologies for the lazy sterotypical joke) Funnily enough quite a few people over the years have said my surname as if it was a French word. I don’t correct them, frankly I quite like it. Irish was the right answer.
>>In that way fighting for democracy and liberty poses the same threat to freedom as fighting for fascism or Islam because either way you’re using coercion to force others to comply with your ideology. Except for the fact that if freedom wins out then we are free and if Islam or Fascim wins we are not free. It’s not at all clear to me how allowing others the right to self-determination can at the same time be equivalent to coercion.
Chi Paul Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >>In that way fighting for democracy and liberty > poses the same threat to freedom as fighting for > fascism or Islam because either way you’re using > coercion to force others to comply with your > ideology. > > > Except for the fact that if freedom wins out then > we are free and if Islam or Fascim wins we are not > free. It’s not at all clear to me how allowing > others the right to self-determination can at the > same time be equivalent to coercion. How do we allow someone the right to self-determination through the use of force? You are effectively forcing someone to exercise that right. Can you see the error in logic of those types of arguments? Also our very concept of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ are ethnocentric. These are concepts that originated in western philosophy. When we ‘liberated’ Iraq what we were effectively doing was enforcing our own value system and beliefs upon others.
bodhisattva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Chi Paul Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > >>In that way fighting for democracy and > liberty > > poses the same threat to freedom as fighting > for > > fascism or Islam because either way you’re > using > > coercion to force others to comply with your > > ideology. > > > > > > Except for the fact that if freedom wins out > then > > we are free and if Islam or Fascim wins we are > not > > free. It’s not at all clear to me how allowing > > others the right to self-determination can at > the > > same time be equivalent to coercion. > > > How do we allow someone the right to > self-determination through the use of force? You > are effectively forcing someone to exercise that > right. > > Can you see the error in logic of those types of > arguments? > > Also our very concept of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ > are ethnocentric. These are concepts that > originated in western philosophy. When we > ‘liberated’ Iraq what we were effectively doing > was enforcing our own value system and beliefs > upon others. 100% agreed.
The use of force is against those who want to rule over others as though they are their own personal property. Slaves were given the right to self-determination through the use of force. Those that are free today that would have been slaves in another era are in no way being forced to exercise any rights today, they can vote or not vote, they can protest or not protest. They can exercise free speech or just keep quiet. No one is being forced to exercise any right so your assertion that this is “forcing someone else to exercise that right” is incorrect. History is littered with the use of force to secure freedom for the opressed, which I would have assumed you were aware of. >> Also our very concept of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ are ethnocentric No, what is ethnocentric is the presumption that freedom and liberty are somehow the exclusive property of the West. As though certain sects of humanity are incapable of handling freedom and presiding over their own lives and thus require a brutal strong man to oversee them. I reject the idea that values such as respect for the individual, due process and freedom of speech are “our values” not to be shared or enjoyed by other races or cutlures that you do not feel are worthy or capable.
Chi Paul Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Slaves were given the right to self-determination > through the use of force. Those that are fre just keep quiet. No one is being forced to > exercise any right so your assertion that this is > “forcing someone else to exercise that right” is > incorrect. History is littered with the use of > force to secure freedom for the opressed, which I > would have assumed you were aware of. While I completely agree with everything you said, I think we can all agree that women shouldn’t be allowed to drive.
All this terrorism junk is so silly, grow up doods.