ashw_justin

Well, I totally deserved that nevertheless... Sorry for going there, heat of the moment and all Yeah I agree that it would be ridiculous for anyone to ignore the 'elephant in the room.' I'm not saying that we should pretend that we don't know anything about Islam. However, we have so many other reasons to go after terrorists and condemned states like Iraq was, that it baffles me that people in government would settle on religion as a strong reason (unless it was to rally the U.S. public, but that raises other issues).

Not sure I get the genderified reference.

I'm sorry archenemy for sounding unfair and questioning your patriotism, right to religious beliefs, or anything else that I may have implicitly offended. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to point out what I see as the potential theocratization of our government and society. Perhaps I mistook you comment about viewing 9/11 as a religious war. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you included our response to 9/11 in that characterization. The Iran comment was part 'stone' because I could guess that it would piss you off, but that does not make it meaningless. Iran is a country where the notion of engaging in a holy war may be perfectly acceptable. Here, I would argue, it is not, or at least shouldn't be. I know that they see it as a holy war that is centuries, even millenia old. But that doesn't mean that our government should, or that it is at all in our interests to buy into the religious aspect of these crimes.

I'm talking about your willingness to buy into the idea that our country should participate in a religious war. And mind you, I did not cast the first stone between you and I in this thread.

If you want to have a religious war, perhaps you might find the idea more acceptable in a country where religion and government are one and the same... Iran maybe? *edit* yeah this was misguided, sorry archenemy

But people were killed in both terrorist acts?

But you said the stories were not related. *edited to remove the word 'bullshit'

Oh, and the 9/11 kamikaze murderers were perfectly sane and normal followers of a peaceful religion? That is complete bs. Oh, are we ignoring the part of story where they blew up buildings? That detail is in fact the most important part of either story!!

How is that an excuse for the United States to engage in a religious war? We should track the son's of b's down and make them answer for their crimes against humanity, but religion should have nothing to do with our side of the conflict, no matter what bullshit 'religious war' they are wishing for. I don't give a shit what their religious excuses are. The point of my use of the word "happen" was to suggest that they didn't necessarily have to be Muslims (gasp) to do what they did. Was Timothy McVeigh a Muslim or a Nazi? Okay, so you argue that this is a widespread anti-U.S. movement. Fine. Let's defend ourselves. But not in the name of religion, and not simply because of symbolisms like "Islamofascist" or "Nazi", but because of actual murder and human rights violations.

I realize that may have been joking, but Bush did not 'have Muslims attacking.' Some creeps flew planes into our buildings. So what if they happened to be Muslims. If Bush 'has Muslims attacking' now, it's because he declared a war on Muslims, which for lack of a better explanation (like propagandizing us into bewildered fear and support) sounds like the very dumbest response to 9/11.

I agree that's a good way to look at it. "Religion," or whatever word you want to put on the mechanism of using symbolic belief systems to impose more fact on reality than can be proven or directly experienced, may be a natural characteristic of humans. Our brains are wired for imagination on a level far beyond the simple acceptance of mere objective experience. Humans will go out on a limb to theorize about anything and that's what has allowed us to make the kinds of discoveries and advances that we have. We are born guessers. What's disappointing is the antisocial pathology exhibited by some to assume that their guesses are better than everyone else's, or that everyone is required to believe their guesses, or that it's okay to conclude that one's guesses are correct even though they are unprovable. Generally (and perhaps unfairly) we don't start using the word 'religious' until we're talking about one of these pathologies. And yet, even Vonnegut himself can't help making assumptions in the same paragraph in which he ridicules it...

You're right, that term was much too sympathetic to use in an umbrella sense. I didn't mean to suggest that these acts of violence are at all acceptable, or even solely committed for the purpose of gaining 'freedom.' These guys don't want freedom, they want blood. They are radical criminals and it's murder no matter what book or flag is waved. We should deal with them just like any other armed murderer. However, just to explore the idea of 'freedom fighters,' certain Palestinians have argued that they murder to gain freedom from Israeli occupation, and certain Iraqis now evidently murder to gain freedom from U.S. occupation. Now I hesitate to compare this to the colonial uprising against Britain since that was a more conventional war between armies (and of course as you point out JayB, the ultimate goals may have been different). The terms of engagement are grossly violated by guerrilla attacks. But then we wrote them, and unfortunately they are not stupid enough to fight our military on our terms. But in any case, somewhere we will have to draw the line between combating terrorism and taking over the world. We took over Iraq at the strong objections of the vast majority of the other countries in the world. That's pretty serious. World Wars have begun over things like that. But I digress. There is another crisis of perspective: by calling what we are doing 'war on terrorism,' we legitimize terrorist acts as something more than the despicable crimes they are. Declaring a 'war on terrorism' is the same kind of stupid as declaring a holy war on Islam. "Hey terrorists! Can we play Jihad too!?" But the question is, assuming that the administration knew what it was doing when it declared a 'war on terrorism,' what was worth the cost of handing this wet dream to the terrorists? Let me throw out the idea that they decided that this rallying cry, no matter how ill-conceived, was necessary to motivate the U.S. public into supporting that which Washington thought needed to be done. Perhaps reason may not always win over a population. Maybe it's just easier to rely on: Geertz called it religion. It also happens to describe propaganda. Is there technically a difference? Should we build our politics and foreign policy around either?

Sort of off-topic (or am I getting back on-topic?), but the fact that we have allowed organized groups of violent international criminals (otherwise known by the highly hijacked term, 'terrorist') to frame their activities in a religious context is a huge mistake. The religious confrontationalists of this country have played right into the hands of the Osama bin Laden's of the world, by helping to polarize the religious atmosphere and turn the fight into something that it shouldn't be about. I wish people would wake up and realize that this is not about religion, it is about violent freedom fighters who have never learned (or been allowed, depending who's story) to play nicely. So what if they say that they are fighting for islam. That's not the f'ing point!

Ah what the hell. Cross-post. Hypocrisy even on the same day. http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html Um, what was your vote again?

Enough of the inappropriate analogies, let's switch to generalization. A terrain park is manufactured; the questions raised here concern quality control and product liability. You can either argue that the injuries were the result of knowably improper use, or of the intended normal use. (I postulate that) in general, a manufacturer should be immune if the former, liable if the latter.

EMQEx6KuEAo

The concept of religion doesn't even necessarily demand the idea of a 'God.' Consider Geertz's definition... Sounds a lot like us, doesn't it? Invasions based on a preconceived notion of how the world should work... Theocalypse Now!

I don't understand. Is this supposed to work like reverse psychology?

Extreme trail running! Let's see, who was missing from Spray this w/e...

mmm... buyer beware. Perfectly sufficient only assuming perfect consumer knowledge and judgment (i.e. never). Well, what if the swing operators could have covered their asses after the first swing accident by replacing the concrete with gravel? Or they could have kicked one out based on their stupid swinging behavior? They're not causing the accidents, yet still perhaps they could have done something to reduce them?

Coalition of the Willing... Yeah, I think I saw that one. It was super raunchy. 8D baa

nevermind

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html Nice, Hilary, nice. Doublethinking with the best of them. She's ready.

I agree with the idea that as long as "people" does not exclude managers of recreational businesses. I mean, they are people too.

freedom pax. she's wearing freedom.