ScottSA

I suppose fear can be irrational if there is no danger. But when there is a demonstrated danger, not being fearful is itself irrational, wouldn't you say? It's all very nice to pretend there's no danger, but I'll hazard a guess that you'll be in the forefront of the shrieking hysterical gaggle of commentators demanding to know why they weren't protected after the next attack hits.

It would just irk you into a tizzy if the surge actually did work, eh Woody?

Sort of like Bush derangement syndrome, wherein every action, every thought, every breath Bush takes is evil. Not only is Bush the moral equivalent of Beelzebub, but his father, mother, extended family, distant relatives and even his circle of acquaintances are tainted, to the bone, with hellgloop. Some even try to drag his ancestors into the mire, by virtue of the fact that this or that one knew someone who had a maid who had a son who saw Hitler in a parade once, thereby establishing a clear link between Bush and Hitler. Same with a lot of asinine canadians when the US comes up for discussion. A short history of the US in this view is that a bunch of white grandees floated over from England, killed the indians, slaughtered the buffalo, started oil companies just to annoy mother earth, nuked the japanese after locking them up for no good reason, napalmed the vietnamese for entertainment while polluting the bejesus out of everything in sight, oppressed el salvador for fun and then invaded iraq so they could steal the oil.

There we go: your position is laughable precisely because it demands we take the wonderfulness of full-chested masculinity as self-evident. It's circular logic. Perhaps there's more to it than "masculinity is good because good things are masculine," but one would't glean it from your arguments. Again: you've done nothing to argue the merits of that model of masculinity and you admit as much here. And your defence of your position is different how? In a way this entire argument is inherently tautological, because it's subjective. It just so happens that my subjective opinion is on the upswing in our society's hegemonic opinion, probably in large part because its becoming necessary to revive it as we drift into a major clash with the enemy. Yours is falling out of favor; a relic of decades of fat rich peacetime, during which we could accord to pretend humanity is unisex and men are merely social constructs. As with Canada's ever-more pronounced political shift to the right, you and the scoffingly cynical will be broadsided when you finally catch up to the fact that the rest of society is far ahead of where you thought it should be.

Stignasti is in on the plot too? That makes at least half the universe so far...funny how no one has whispered even a hint of this plot for 6 years now...

Does it matter to you that no court in the world agrees with you? That is not true. Both the Nuremburg tribunals and the UN charter recognize international aggression as the highest of all war crimes. Besides, what are you saying? That a war with no justification and a 100% guarantee of civilian casualties is somehow not murder? Yes, this is the glossing over that is so disturbing. It is pure hatred. Andrew It's also not "illegal": Hezbollah, and frequently Hamas, are the criminals according to international law. Do you have no words of condemnation for them, or is your condemnation reserved for white folk? Just so you know, things are not "illegal" just because you 'feel' they should be.

Doesn't matter in the slightest when the initial justification for the occupier is completely lacking. That alone makes collateral damage nothing but murder. How about I just pat you on the head and say never mind? There are tomes and tomes making this point self-evident. Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bellum reaching all the way the the GC makes your point quite clear in point of agreed moral and in point of law. Poor Andrew...

Tell you what. When I have time, I'll open a thread and explain exactly why the invasion is not "illegal". Suffice it to say for now that there are 16 UNSC resolutions authorising a resumption of hostilities, all 'recalling' and 'reaffirming' (specific legal terms with specific meanings in intl law) the original ceasefire resolution. In fact, 15 of them were unecessary, and simply existed as Bush chose to go the extra mile. Clinton launched attacks on Iraq SOLEY on the strength of the original UNSC res. Until such time as you can show me an interpretive UNSC res claiming that the invasion is illegal, it is illegal only in your mind.

Sorry sweetie, but you're mistaken. Re-read the thread. I never disputed that it was masculine, nor was that ever a point of contention. Try to find a citation. You won't. My main points were about homoeroticism (which was mostly a sidebar that I pursued because you seemed to get your shorts in a bunch over it; of course, homoeroticism and masculinity are not mutually exclusive) and with the form of masculinity the movie embodied. So maybe you can take time from your self-congraulatory masturbation to show where this alleged schism occurred. Of course if you do read through, you may notice you never confront the subject (which would be the validity of the model of "manliness" you espouse). You take it as a priori. I actually did "confront" it, although I'm not sure why I bothered; it being entirely clear to anyone but a feminist scholar. The movie embraced unashamed male pride; not simpering sensitive man, as the feminist world would have us do, or some twisted "homoerotica", as simpering homosexual critics would have it, but proudly heterosexual malehood. That is to me self-evident, which is why I take it as a priori. Beyond that, as I have mentioned previously as well, the movie makes Virtu of ideals lost to malehood for a couple of decades: sacrifice, honor, duty. You mock it as petty squabbling over territory, but that is something you take as an a priori, spawned by a generation raised on relativistic cynicism. Femininity is Virtu as it applies to women. It is not a Virtu in and of itself.

Holding aloft the idea of a popular mandate is one way to look at it, but at least as often, the election is called because the government thinks it has a chance to increase its standing.

You mean one of these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_terrorism No, I meant Jains or Buddhists. I mean really...with 257 self-proclaimed Islamic terror groups afoot and active in the world today and killing hundreds across the globe each day, don't you feel a little foolish trying to jam everything from every religion together to make up a fraction of the amount of terror that Islam spawns?

Yes yes, we know all that. I'm asking for some New testament passages.

Whatever...I'd just suggest that you continue through to graduate work, where you'll hopefully learn to shift wheat from chaff a little better.

It's telling that you can't or won't answer the question. What is manliness? I have answered the question. You just spend thread after thread arguing about everything I said, and then letting slip that you agreed with everything I said.

"Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation."-Marx Ilove it! Do you have any idea what that means? If I were you, I'd spend a little less time googling and a little more time trying to understand what it is you're posting. Thanks for proving my point.

"Fear is a natural response without which we would all die in the presence of danger." Me.

That is a simple minded explanation, not the simplest explanation that explains the observations. The buildings could not have fallen the way they did with the potential energy available before the collapse. Its very simple. Even CD's follow the laws of gravity as everything else with mass. Yes of course. The simplest answer is merely simple minded. The only viable answer is to reach around plucking unrelated facts out of thin air, discard uncomfortable facts, and paste together the remaining collection, shellack it with scary music, and announce that only a dummy can't see the TRVTH.

Ooooh! Someone got Harvey Mansfield for X-mas! What is "manliness" and how does this movie fit that definition? Because surely it can't simply entail wearing speedos and shouting slogans (though I can see why that would appeal to someone like you). Good one. I know how you feel. It's embarrassing when you admit that the other folks are right, isn't it? Go ahead and call me names...I understand.

I say I'm lucky to be canadian and proud of Canada...only immigrants can be truly proud to be Canadian cause only they have done something to become Canadians...I was only fortunate to be born here. How deeply....milquetoast. yeah? what exactly is timid about a reality? Why would someone chose to be proud over a non accomplishment? Being proud to be born a Canadian (or American, Brit etc...) is like being proud of winning the lottery. Oh I agree. You demonstrate the self-despise most of the west is subject to these days. The fact that we NEED immigrants in order to replace the population speaks to this too. These threads are full of people trying to prove how everything is the west's fault, and how westerners are worse than the rest of the world. Why is it surprising that you would elevate immigrants above yourself as an indigenous Canadian? Let me co-op your reply...I know, I know, we "stole" the land from the real indigenous Canadians...we're just scum...

They could be told they are laying wires for intercomms, computers - anything - or they could have been told it was for "national security reasons". Have enough different contractors doing different floors and none think they played a part in 911 because they only did the work ona few floors. The official version is impossible. The buildings had to be demolished - its the only explanation that explains the observations so its the only possible explanation. Two airplanes flew into two buildings, ripping through several floors with so much force that they exploded out the other side, spilling jetfuel down the central column, whiched burned, and then the buildings fell down, mysteriously following the laws of gravity and landing underneath where they once stood. Conclusion? That a cabal of bankers, crews upon crews of workmen, government agencies, the US administration from Bush on down, International Jewry, the CIS, ISI, Mossad, MI6 and 7, the international media, the NYFD, and the Knights Templar concocted a great big plot, wired the building and blew it up. How obvious.

Son, appeals to authority are silly. It's like me saying I have several degrees in Political Studies and History, and I can say with absolute authority that Bush and International Jewry didn't do this. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/blowhard.htm of course, that example is not so much an appeal to authority as an example of a lie and a fraudulent resumé Oh, good one woodie. Yuck Yuck.

I say I'm lucky to be canadian and proud of Canada...only immigrants can be truly proud to be Canadian cause only they have done something to become Canadians...I was only fortunate to be born here. How deeply....milquetoast.

Son, appeals to authority are silly. It's like me saying I have several degrees in Political Studies and History, and I can say with absolute authority that Bush and International Jewry didn't do this. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/blowhard.htm

Maybe so, but this is the 21st century and not the 16th. If Islam would confine its reformative actions to slaying each other over such questions as how many virgins can prance on the shredded heads of departiculated freedom fighters, I'm sure I wouldn't much mind. But when Islam decides that it's going to reform by attacking me and mine, that makes it of direct interest to me.

There it is. Why didn't you just say this in the first place instead of lipblabbering your way in and out of conceptual holes? Lets do it in point form: 1 The movie was manly 2 You don't like manliness, and prefer to scoff at it from a position of what you at least hope is moral superiority. That wasn't so hard now, was it?