I gave you examples, you want more or do you want to do your own research? The American public was scared of Saddam in 1990 and they were scared again in 2003. In both cases there was NOTHING to be scared of yet you had people training and buying guns just in case he came HERE to the United States.

Hell you don't even have to look hard, remember the Red Scare when everyone was terrified that the communists are going to choke us in the night? We're a scaredy cat nation, because the propaganda is geared towards scaring us. You can't deny the effect of propaganda on people, it turned us from not wanting to get into World War 1 to a German hating crazy warmongering public. We couldn't even play Bach here because we hated Germany so much. Also the Yellow Journalism that got us into the Spanish American War, there are still people terrified that Cuba is about to strangle us...SERIOUSLY FUCKING CUBA!

Goebbels, Hitlers propaganda minister, based HIS propaganda on the United States' model. This shit is all documented, and you just sit there "Nope not true" you don't have any evidence though.

Chomsky talks about getting letters from people constantly about how dare he defend (as if he does) the helpless people that might kill us at any moment.

LOOK Right here at home, we're terrified of black people, so lets have a War on drugs to make sure if you're a 14 year old black kid with a joint in your pocket you go to jail for a LONG AS TIME. Just look at any prison, you'll see the effect it had.

Just provide some evidence for what you claim...it's not hard, till then you can't tell me I'm drinking kool aid because I actually work at gaining knowledge.

Last election cycle the warmongering towards Iran was far far more widespread than it is at the moment. It was a major election issue. Now it is a sideshow at best as the USA has war fatigue. Give it 3 years or so once you all withdraw from Afghanistan.

Plus there was a lot of talk about North Korea before they got the bomb.

And China comes up whenever they flex their muscle against Taiwan. This will become a bigger issue in the coming years as China pushes for territorial rights to the south China sea, which if you look at a map really should be called the Vietnamese Philippine Brunei Chinese sea.

Syria is coming on to the stage too.

It all just comes and goes so easily from public consciousness that we forget. Iraq is still a total shitstorm of ethnic violence, civilian bombings etc but we're sick of hearing about it and dont want to feel guilty so its not news worthy. There's no fear left ergo no need to watch.

>> ^Kofi:

Was Pearl Harbour very selective and targeted?
Plus, 30,000 tonnes?!?!?!?! Think about it for a moment. Tonnes, pounds, whatever.


Pearl Harbor is an interesting case. It's on one hand a horrific war crime, and on the other well within the standards in which the US operates. Hawaii was a colony which we stole and placed military bases there to control the pacific. Bombers were being produced and put there with the expressed intention, literally this was put in the paper, to bomb the shit out of Japan.

It would be like China setting up on Cuba and sending planes there that they brag can bomb all US cities on the eastern sea board. We'd probably go insane and start nuking everything if that happened.

>> ^gwiz665:

It's like saying warmongering peace.
>> ^hpqp:
quality breakdown of what secularism means, and why it's ridiculous to whine about supposedly "militant secularism".

I beg to differ on the semantics.


Militant: "vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause"
A "militant secularist" might be someone who actively seeks out examples of theism (such a prayer, acknowledgment of a divine power, or symbols of theist holidays in government settings) in order to protest, or one that continues their opposition despite broad support for theist behavior in the affected community. You can determine for yourself if this type of action is objectionable or laudable, but I think it's entirely possible to be a "militant secularist".

It's like saying warmongering peace.
>> ^hpqp:

quality breakdown of what secularism means, and why it's ridiculous to whine about supposedly "militant secularism".

>> ^jmzero:
The 50s were an aberration, not the norm for all time before the horrible 60s. This is a ridiculous untruth propagated by people who grew up in the 50s and who, in the US, are bitter about losing a cultural war. Much of the reason the 50s were so explicitly religious was because of government intervention - explicit religion was seen as a counter to communism. Other than that, it was a generational effect, you can see the cycle through history. In terms of overall morality, I'll take now - a time without slavery, less crime, and much more protection for the bullied in general - over pretty much any point in history.

This isn't entirely true. Yes, the late 40s and 50s were aberrations in the 20th century, mostly because of world war 2. America considered WW2 to be a moral war, perhaps the greatest example of the paradigm of good versus evil in our history, and biblical morality was at an all time high. However, Christian theism has always been the dominant worldview of American intellectuals until secular humanism started to dominate around the 1930s. If not for the war the culture may have changed earlier, but in general it has been a Christian nation with Christian values.

>> ^jmzero:
I mean, there were certainly positives to the 1950s if you were a middle-to-upper-class white male but it really sucked for most other people.

I think the society was quite a bit better, and safer for most. Crime was much less than it is now, cost of living was lower, standard of living was rising, etc. Yes, there was racism and the like, but it's not like we've gotten rid of that either.

>> ^jmzero:
As to now, the biggest immoral behavior I see the US doing right now is slaughtering people overseas. I'm waiting for the time when warmongering candidates can't get support in Tennessee because of all the Christians. Oh wait, it's not warmongering they hate, it's "differing slightly on religious views".

I agree, many Christian voters are voting on superficial issues and not on whether the candidate is meeting biblical standards.

>> ^jmzero:
And who is fighting hardest against universal healthcare, foodstamps, and progressive taxation? Most people (of any kind) are good and want to help the underprivileged; mostly they just differ on how to administer that aid.

Conservatives are, and not all Christians are conservatives. Jesus taught both conservative and liberal principles, but both sides want to claim Him for themselves. I think most people want to help the poor, but most people aren't doing anything about it unfortunately.

>> ^jmzero:
According to this - http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/23/most-charitable-states-cx_lh_1125home_ls.html - the #1 state is Utah. Hmmm... I wonder why? Maybe it's because they're browbeaten by their church into donating? Too bad they're not Christians, eh Shiny, or you could take credit for them. On the whole, I think it's ridiculous to count donations to a Church as wholly charitable for this purpose. A donation to a church is partially going to support charitable stuff, but largely is going to support building a church, heating it, maintaining it, advertising it, supplying it, and paying people who work there (the same as a donation to Applebee's).

Well, supporting the church also supports all of these local programs and ministries, such as food banks and homeless shelters, so I think it all pans out. As far as mormons go, they aren't Christian for the same reason muslims aren't Christian; they both teach another God apart from the God of the bible.

>> ^jmzero:
Speaking for myself, I made it about 10 seconds in before it annoyed me too much to keep watching. Annoying voice, cliche, stupid non-jokes.

I made it all the way through somehow. It hurt me deep inside.

it all started to change when Americans rebelled against biblical morality in the 60's and 70's. Before that, we had Christian values and a Christian culture


The 50s were an aberration, not the norm for all time before the horrible 60s. This is a ridiculous untruth propagated by people who grew up in the 50s and who, in the US, are bitter about losing a cultural war. Much of the reason the 50s were so explicitly religious was because of government intervention - explicit religion was seen as a counter to communism. Other than that, it was a generational effect, you can see the cycle through history. In terms of overall morality, I'll take now - a time without slavery, less crime, and much more protection for the bullied in general - over pretty much any point in history.

I mean, there were certainly positives to the 1950s if you were a middle-to-upper-class white male but it really sucked for most other people.

As to now, the biggest immoral behavior I see the US doing right now is slaughtering people overseas. I'm waiting for the time when warmongering candidates can't get support in Tennessee because of all the Christians. Oh wait, it's not warmongering they hate, it's "differing slightly on religious views".

who do you think is running all of those food banks and homeless shelters?


And who is fighting hardest against universal healthcare, foodstamps, and progressive taxation? Most people (of any kind) are good and want to help the underprivileged; mostly they just differ on how to administer that aid.

For instance, arkansas is one of the most charitible states, whose citizens give around 3.9 percent of their income


According to this - http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/23/most-charitable-states-cx_lh_1125home_ls.html - the #1 state is Utah. Hmmm... I wonder why? Maybe it's because they're browbeaten by their church into donating? Too bad they're not Christians, eh Shiny, or you could take credit for them. On the whole, I think it's ridiculous to count donations to a Church as wholly charitable for this purpose. A donation to a church is partially going to support charitable stuff, but largely is going to support building a church, heating it, maintaining it, advertising it, supplying it, and paying people who work there (the same as a donation to Applebee's).

It's simply another anti-christian vehicle that atheists will all nod their head and agree with without any thoughtful analysis.


Speaking for myself, I made it about 10 seconds in before it annoyed me too much to keep watching. Annoying voice, cliche, stupid non-jokes.

>> ^kevingrr:

@ghark
1 - I'm not sure which swipe of Chris Hedges you are referring to. If it is in regard to the Moral Landscape I can only comment that Hedges takes every opportunity to inject himself into the spotlight. Having read the Moral Landscape I can say that the ideas Harris presents CAN be challenged by legitimate thinkers, of which Hedges is not.
Hedges game has been to misrepresent Harris' point of view as written in End of Faith. I would go so far as to call Hedges an all out liar. See my post in this thread:

2 - Where here is Sam blindly racist? He states that acts of terror are more likely to be carried out by young Muslim men than by 5 year old girls or grandmothers.
If I said that black athletes are more likely to be basketball players and white athletes are more likely to be baseball players would that make me racist? Because in terms of professional sports that simply IS the case. Note I am not saying WHY that is the case - I am simply saying it is and the statistics prove it.
As I have said before Sam is not racist, but he is honest about who is most likely to have some bad ideas and he does not like bad ideas.
3. Sam is not a pacifist but he is not a warmonger either. As I listened to the entirety of the interview I noted he had a very nuanced idea of when war, or physical violence of any kind, is justified.
One last link regarding Hedges:
Here


Shouldn't the definition of terrorism (of which there are many) be carefully examined before making that statement? I assume you are using the 'American mainstream media' version, which of course means, an act in which a colored person with a beard tries to inflict injury or death on other (usually white) people. If the definition is not looked at with mainstream-media-tinted spectacles then it would not be a stretch to say that the 105,000+ documented Iraqi civilian casualties since 2003 were caused by American (and allied troops) terrorism. Political and resource motivated civilian slaughter on a massive scale (and on foreign soil) sounds very terrorist-like to me. Using this line of logic, would it not make more statistical sense to worry about young to middle aged white males having access to military training than scanning middle aged Muslim men at airports.

My point is not to blame the US troops, Australian troops were also involved, my point is simply that someone of Harris' intellect should be above the simple fear mongering and use of blatant misleading generalizations that he's demonstrating in this video. He was one of my hero's for a while there, and seeing him for what he truly seems to be leaves me a bit hollow inside.

As far as Hedges goes, he seems to be on the mark most of the time, and is an excellent speaker, however I thought his shots at Harris were pretty poor form (during his book launch) because it just seemed to be a blatant publicity stunt, so I agree with you on that to a degree.

Please take in mind My BS meter couldn't handle more than about 25-30 mins of the video, and as @LukinStone mentions, Harris explains some of his comments in more detail later in the video, I just couldn't make it that far unfortunately. Most of what I was hearing was self-gratification, "a large American city has about a 50% chance of having a nuclear bomb set off in it within the next decade or so", racist comments and some war mongering, there's only so much I can take

@ghark

1 - I'm not sure which swipe of Chris Hedges you are referring to. If it is in regard to the Moral Landscape I can only comment that Hedges takes every opportunity to inject himself into the spotlight. Having read the Moral Landscape I can say that the ideas Harris presents CAN be challenged by legitimate thinkers, of which Hedges is not.


Hedges game has been to misrepresent Harris' point of view as written in End of Faith. I would go so far as to call Hedges an all out liar. See my post in this thread:


2 - Where here is Sam blindly racist? He states that acts of terror are more likely to be carried out by young Muslim men than by 5 year old girls or grandmothers.

If I said that black athletes are more likely to be basketball players and white athletes are more likely to be baseball players would that make me racist? Because in terms of professional sports that simply IS the case. Note I am not saying WHY that is the case - I am simply saying it is and the statistics prove it.

As I have said before Sam is not racist, but he is honest about who is most likely to have some bad ideas and he does not like bad ideas.

3. Sam is not a pacifist but he is not a warmonger either. As I listened to the entirety of the interview I noted he had a very nuanced idea of when war, or physical violence of any kind, is justified.

One last link regarding Hedges:
Here

Right, so..

1.) I never said Ron Paul is some panacea for the world's troubles.

2.) I even admitted that Paul is more or less a racist homophobic religious cuke.

3.) I don't think Paul or any single person should have that much power to begin with.

The fact that we're still stuck with a two-party system in which we vote for one president "in charge of everything"..

..as opposed to 50 governors and local communities making their own decisions for their own goddamn selves is mind-numbing.

Point is:
The immediate effects and sincere discussions that would take place in the wake of such a radical candidate becoming president are the best thing that could happen for the American political process at this conjunction in our history.

For fuck's sake, YOUR AVATAR & GALAXY STAR ARE A GUY FAWKES MASK! You should support a grassroots underdog upheaval like the one Paul represents more than anyone on this site.

Ron Paul represents the chance to reclaim our Foreign Policy from Warmongers; our Economics from Speculators; our Health, Safety, Labor, and Ideas from Robber Barons.

But then again, he did stereotype blacks as fleet-footed so.. I guess you make a good counter-point.
>> ^NetRunner:

Hah. No. Of course not.

I'd liked to remain as status quo-y and entrenched in my beliefs as the Conservative Republicans I like to gripe about.

But it's okay cause I wear & cheer lead for the blue team while I do so.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
You got any solutions, bro?
Or just more fallacious arguments?

Your video, TYT: Sky News Iran Propaganda, Warmongering, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@MaxWilder


Who me?

I agree with the video. Obama has done nothing substantive on the issue of money buying political power. But as long as he doesn't start talking up war with Iran, I will choose him any day of the week against those warmongering Republitards.

It's simply not possible to do anything substantial from the top down. There are too many bought politicians. If there's going to be change, it must be demanded by us. And as long as the conservatives have half the population duped into being corporate lemmings, that change is unlikely. Things are going to have to get worse before they get better.

We're going to have to have about 75% of the people who understand what the banks, military industry, and pharmaceutical corporations are doing to us before rational minds will be able to overpower the corporate spokes-holes. At that point the politicians will know for a fact that they will be only get elected or re-elected if they make progress re-balancing the economic system.

Warmongering and judging are fine against non-christians, and 'no divorce' is more a catholic thing. It's nice to be able to pick and choose what rules you believe in and find a church that suits you.

Funny how the many denominations of christians today don't appreciate the lack of a state religion, and how it would be the only officially recognized religion, and the rest would get no special benefits, like tax exemption, etc. But then I'm betting every church believes they're the one true church, and they'd be the ones chosen. Maybe not having a separation of church and state would make things a bit awkward at this point.

It'd be funny to watch though.

Excellent link @NetRunner, here's mine (can you tell I'm from Europe? )

@lantern53: ftfy

"The gov't invested interests, corporate lobbying and mindless warmongering (among other things) made this problem. Now the gov't is going to have to try to fix it."

@bobknight33

The Tea Party is the solution? Are you kidding me?

I'm quite proud of my home state this weekend; or at least I was until I saw them chanting "USA! USA! USA!" like a bunch of neocon warmongers. That was a bit embarrassing.

I kid, though. Great day for NY. If they can ever get their cost of living under control, maybe I'll move back.