Title: Brother, beware of white girls who look like this Source:
underprivilegedJournalism URL Source:http://underprivilegedjournalism.wordpress.com/ Published:Aug 18, 2008 Author:underprivilegedJournalism Post Date:2008-08-18 09:22:44 by Jethro Tull Keywords:None Views:1775 Comments:166
Poster Comment:
I see, black on white rape is the fault of the white girl....
Their website is hilarious. Most of it is something about blacks using their melanin to channel energy through their pineal gland and zapping their enemies with it. I wonder if "Pastor" Wright believes in this stuff.
As a proponent for genocide you have zero room to preach to me about low intensity or asymmetrical conflict; or constitutional republics either for that matter.
Are these the clever words you neos and 'piles use to discuss unconstitutional war? Me thinks you've been hit in the head with one too many asymmetrical tree limbs.
"Are these the clever words you neos and 'piles use to discuss unconstitutional war? Me thinks you've been hit in the head with one too many asymmetrical tree limbs."
I don't question your superior knowledge through experiance of many aspects of police work. Therefore, seeing how I dealt specifically with the varieties of war happening over there in Special Forces, suffice it to say that is where that came from.
If you would like to debate what is happening there and why I want to see continued suppression of insurgents there, I would not have any problems with that. I do have strong opinions on that conflict, some of which are heavily influenced by my experiance and trainig in the U.S. Army where I was an NCO.
I will agree with you on one thing, the war should not go on unless Congress weighs in and gives their sanction. The fact Bush did not get a declaration is just another trapping of the brand of neocon fascism we are afflicted with with him blighting the White House.
I also will say that in spite of the anger your casual admonition that a genocide should happen, I have to back down on the accusation you are a fascist. In doing so, I violate the Mandel Rule.
I invalidate my argument by using such an accusation. Therefore I will leave this at my dissapointment you seem to care so little for human life, and I am willing to listen to what you have to say to clarify or expand on this comment of yours'.
I still like you as a person, and appreciate the friendship you have shown, and I never throw that away casually.
Anyone using labels such as fascist, communist, or any other hard to define in a way to label another in political debate in a way to try to win it quick, cheaply and in an intellectually lazy way loses the argument/debate by default.
Used at the Well, and in the old Time.com /politics forum moderated by journalist David Mclemore of Texas
If you would like to debate what is happening there and why I want to see continued suppression of insurgents there, I would not have any problems with that.
Yes, lets.
Who are insurgents and how do they differ from freedom fighters? Under what constitutional authority was our military sent and what is our exit strategy?
"Who are insurgents and how do they differ from freedom fighters?"
Insurgency is warfare in which the combatants cannot control territory and sustain conventional military operations unless they have developed overwhelming support, winning the hearts and minds of the people where it occurs.
Insurgents are indigenous or infiltrated outsider combatants who operate usually in a cellular organization where knowledge of who and where all cells and other elements is on a need to know basis for security reasons.
Insurgent is a label derived from the study of insurgency and counterinsurgency. Freedom fighters is a subjective term used by supporters of an insurgency, who are called rebels by the governing authority they are acting to hurt, demoralize, bedevil and ultimately destroy.
Insurgents usually hit and run because it turns logistical weakness into the strength of demoralization caused by each insurgent seeming like fifty to conventional troops and civilian police authorities.
They also sap logistical strength and cause expense to governing authorities by necessitating the guarding and higher security of soft targets like infrastructure such as dams, power stations or supply dumps for example.
As an insurgency wins the hearts and minds of the local population, they are able to step up the level of their efforts.
A good example of what I speak of here was General Westmoreland's foolish statement in Vietnam where he was the U.S. commander about how now N.V.A. and Viet Cong elements were using tanks and other more conventional forces we now could defeat them.
However, in actuality, this was a reflection how support from the general population had swung in a large way from the corrupt Saigon government and their U.S. allies to those conducting insurgency from North Vietnam.
"Under what constitutional authority was our military sent and what is our exit strategy?"
An insurgency is generally considered a low intensity conflict. They are present in various places in the world in our age continuously, and we render varying degrees of support to those friends of ours who are faced with having to conduct counterinsurgency operations.
This can be as little as shipments of military equipment and providing training at the School of the Americas, the Special Forces Qualification Course, or other courses or efforts by specialists in this sort of conflict through the John F. Kennedy Center for Military Assistance at Fort Bragg, N.C., to providing Special Operations Command (SOCOM) units and conventional forces to support them to both directly deal with insurgents and train and organize military elements effective at dealing with the special aspects of insurgency.
As with insurgency, counterinsurgency has the same core mission of winning the hearts and minds of the locals, denying aid and comfort to those being opposed.
As a Special Forces Soldier, I was trained to be empathetic and diplomatic with the locals. SF and other special operations elements go through an extended isolation phase before deploying to digest the large amount of information concerning where one is going.
You learn and are expected to be sensitive to social, religious, cultural and historic aspects of the inhabitants of an area in a manner conventional U.S. forces could never do.
Special Forces has a strong bond of teamwork and is oriented to teaching and organizing where an element such as a Ranger Battalion is a highly trained and extremely fierce and tough military unit that moves fast with a light load accomplishing a mission with far less people then a conventional unit could.
Therefore, an exit strategy in a low intensity conflict such and an insurgency involves how well the mission of training and organizing counter-insurgent element goes. It is highly dependent on winning the hearts and minds of local inhabitants much as is true for an insurgency if they wish to succeed.
Winning, and reaching the exit point often involves resisting the use of conventional forces without training in insurgency as what small gain you get in force and security is lost because of the way conventionals alienate and antagonize locals just by being themselves.
There is no easy answer for establishing a concrete exit strategy in a conflict such as we see in Afghanistan, but I know that if after a set time period no improvement is seen in the situation, or if things just get worse, it makes sense to just call it a day and let the chips fall where they may.
The U.S. and other developed countries need to acknowledge and respect the fact that for all their might, money and know how, sometimes the insurgents win. If ultimately the people vote for them overwhelmingly with there support, one needs to have the presence of mind to recognize this and respect it by leaving.
"I guess I'm not understanding the strong feelings against Iraq, yet the bloodlust for Afghanistan."
I guess I don't understand the strong feelings you claim to have for those whose ancestors came from Europe and your feeling that you should not genocidically kill anyone who's ancestors came from Africa unless you do it right.
More deflection, vis a vis, your blood lust in Afghanistan.
My HIV comment was a comment on Obummer's nutty black pastor, the Rev. Wright. He claimed whites developed HIV in some govt. lab for the purpose of genocide. My remark was a comic reply to his nuttery, which was totally lost on your multicultural-loving ass.
Now, tell me the constitutional authority that guides our military in Afghanistan?
"My HIV comment was a comment on Obummer's nutty black pastor, the Rev. Wright. He claimed whites developed HIV in some govt. lab for the purpose of genocide. My remark was a comic reply to his nuttery, which was totally lost on your multicultural-loving ass."
He isn't his pastor, he WAS his pastor. See what I am seeing about your bias?
And your 'remark' clearly stated that if one was to do genocide, one should not do it unless someone does it right.
Then you stonewalled giving any clarification until now.
Taken in the context of all the bait and hate in here directed against Americans of African ethnic origin that happens constantly with such extreme bias and hatred in this forum, it is important when making such a stupid and blood thirsty comment to clarify what in blue blazes you are talking about and why.
He isn't his pastor, he WAS his pastor. See what I am seeing
about your bias?
And we know this b/c Obama, a
politician seeking the presidency, says so? I submit he can no more toss the
Rev. Wright, a man who married he and Michelle & baptised his children) under
the bus than he can his own white grandmother. Pardon me, but unlike you I
don't hold his words very seriously. Obama is an acolyte to black liberation
theology as are his fellow Chicago street activists. And isn't it odd how the
racial flacks would tear RP, or any other white candidate a new 'hole for past
associations with groups (a visit to Bob Jones Univ. or the C of C as an
example) but cut Obama a break for his past radical ties? The dual racial
double standard you live by is un-American and divisive.
Still no answer to
the constitutional authorization for war with Afghanistan?
"Still no answer to the constitutional authorization for war with Afghanistan?"
I responded to this, you just choose not to take up the thread of that response. This is your prerogative, but don't whine to me about your own intellectual dishonesty.
Congress in passing the War Powers Act of 1972 acknowledged the need to grant leeway in the deployment of military assets prior to any Congressional approval for them.
That was Congress' prerogative to do, and the Constitution grants them this prerogative because it does not forbid such measures based on the changing nature over time of which things as how warfare is waged.
There is a definite problem with the Commander in Chief not abiding by the need to get this deployment vetted by Congress, thus I do acknowledge the need for Congress to rule on out involvement in Afghanistan.
What I am seeing here is you don't wish to discuss this, as it suits your own political agenda to ignore my words and to play DA with me.
That is why we are apparently at an impasse here with no real discussion happening.
And I have been doing most the talking and getting only clipped and unfriendly cross examination that ignores what I am saying.
Congress in passing the War Powers Act of 1972 acknowledged the need to grant leeway in the deployment of military assets prior to any Congressional approval for them.
Helloooooooooo..........
Did he subsequently comply with the constitutional statutes of the Act?
Ask him about the glowing yellow stuff that spilled out of one of the WTC towers. You know, the glowing stuff that the liberal and conservative zionist media gatekeepers want you to ignore.
"Ask him about the glowing yellow stuff that spilled out of one of the WTC towers. You know, the glowing stuff that the liberal and conservative zionist media gatekeepers want you to ignore."
I am not anti-Semitic just because I do not like Zionism.
One thing you have to deal with is racism and anti-Semitic sentiments cheapen the fabric of any forum or even any dialog.
I respect the First Amendment and freedom of religion, or not to have one, and I support human right regardless of where someone's ancestors or the person came from or what color they are.
You seem more concerned with making the false flag operations Zionist in nature then in getting across to people what really happened.
My priorities are let's get it validated that September 11th 2001 was a day we killed our own for political gain before using it to beat Israel over the head with it.
You seem more concerned with making the false flag operations Zionist in nature then in getting across to people what really happened.
You're insinuating the official 9/11 false flaggers are not zionist in nature and their aim was not a zionist aim, and that's zionist bullshit. You're also suggesting it was a non-zionist inside job, and that's bigger zionist bullshit.
If you want to suggest that the US and zionism have common fates and cannot be separated in that way, you're just another war-happy profiteering zionist patriot supremacist retarded piece of crap.
"You're insinuating the official 9/11 false flaggers are not zionist in nature..."
Actually, personally I do not doubt Zionism and our support of it is an element that made it all possible for those doing 9-11 to dare do what they did.
However, someone with the eye on the prize of jumping the obstacles thrown in the way of informing the public of the true nature of 9-11 does not muddy the water with making such an bald attack on Zionism.
All you do is turn some people of who might otherwise be receptive to the message, and give opponents a strong means to further belittle and dismiss what happened as an el Qaeda attack that was not groomed and used to cover-up false flag operations.
Actually, personally I do not doubt Zionism and our support of it is an element that made it all possible for those doing 9-11 to dare do what they did.
Dude, you cannot continue to backtrack on me and tell me you're about moving forward. That bit hardly explains you pulling out the the smelly old "anti- semite" smear.
I have no love for Israel and I hate its US lobbies (AIPAC, ADL), but what I can't stand even more are people who shout "Zionist," "Jew" or "Jew tool" at everyone and anyone who suggests that not every problem in the world is caused solely and uniquely by Jews and Israel.
End result is the distraction of discussion onto sidebars, tangents and deadends.
All coming from the zionists.
The point is simple, zionists are shitstains.
That's leaving out that they're nepotistic moneygrubbing greedy overcontrolling murderous contrived supremacist global-population-conscious globalist shitstains, as much as you may like to kiss their asses for their might.
