GENIUS FORUMS

MKFaizi wrote:I know that you love to accuse me of things but get a grip. I do not think that Iraq sold weapons to Syria or that Syria intended to use them against the US.

I was following the train of thought of another poster and conjecturing on that.

Allah Akhbar.

Faizi

All I "accuse" you of is the following:

MKFaizi wrote:Even a possible Saddam ally such as Syria would have used WMDs to stop the US.

Gee, I wonder how could I have gotten the idea that you thought Syria would use Iraq's WMDs on the US if they had them? Silly me.

Admiral Akbar!

Yes, I wrote that following the conjecture of another poster.

Faizi

Yes I realize that now. Originally, because of the way it's written, it didn't look like a conjecture to me.

sschaula wrote: We've used nukes on Iraq and Afghanistan!? Wow. No. Sorry. That isn't what happened. We sought to destroy terrorist training camps, and those involved in the camps. We were attacked, and then we defended

There were no camps in Iraq. Although you really want to sound like some informed person, you're just repeating flawed media reports like the next ignorant bloke. The only known 'rebel' camps were in the 'US-controlled' zone where Saddam had no military control anymore. And they found one other anti-terrorist training camp for Iraq's special forces, the one with the old airplane carcass in it. All intel before the war about his has been proven wrong. The US USED you, I'm afraid, like all those others that voted for the war. Sheep, ready to believe what mother tells them.

Anyone who defends Iran on this issue is asking to be mutilated by radiation.

The question is 'who is agressive' and 'who gains from an attack'. The answer is not Iran. I'd worry about Israel if I were you. Anyway, there'll all hyping each other up to a frenzy by now, as to make it really muddy and hard to see who 'started' a so-called pre-emptive strike.

Here is the only post which is sensible and enlightened, although I don't think Saddam said he had nukes within the year of the invasion. I didn't really begin watching the news until this past year and a half or so.

Then you should maybe not make so many claims in your posts? The wars these days are all based on information and perception only. Do you know anything about the Middle East actually? Traveled there? Any friends that grew up there without their heads stuck in the sand?

Check todays Washington Post: U.S. Said To Misread Hussein On Arms: "Piece by piece, the intelligence presented that day [at the UN] by Powell has been shown to have been wrong". This is not journalist opinion but based on a final report from the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command.

Why would you trust such government for anything, like doing the groceries even? They should resign before even doing any foreign policy ever again. That's called sanity.

Scott purged:

There's a difference between a terrorist and a violent person. A violent person will attack by DEFENDING (themselves, or others). A terrorist will attack by OFFENDING (themselves, or others).

Why do people attack, either for defending or offending? In the case of Iran, it could be assumed that the government wants to prepare itself to attack out of defense. "The West is overhauling Middle Eastern governments! Iraq and Afghanistan have already changed...who says Iran won't be next?!"

So it makes sense that Iran wants to defend itself against America. "America has nukes....why can't we!?"

Not too bad, so far.

Well the truth is, Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons because the Mid East is full of terrorists.

Oh, really?

Any thoughtful person who watches the news knows this.

Yes, any "thoughtful" person who watches the news knows what the news "thinks."

You see suicide bombings constantly.

Would you say you saw more suicide bombings or more Americans shooting/killing each other in the homeland? Do you think there is such a thing as “peak reporting season” for such things? Like, have Americans suddenly stopped shooting each other?

Just the other day, around the corner from my mother’s place, a man stabbed his wife 12 times in front of their children, to death.

It almost doesn't make any sense. Why would you want to undermine your government? Fear of being governed? Is it because these terrorists enjoy being free of the Democratic type oppression (which isn't oppression compared to Saddam Hussein)? To me, it doesn't make sense.

It doesn’t make any sense to you because you don’t think and, therefore, you lack sufficient information.

Obviously, you have no idea how many warring religious and political factions there are in Iraq. God damn it, Scott! Be a man and take your own advice.

All I know is that there are people in this world who harm innocent people. These are violent people, who are terrorists.

Well, on the face of it, you do make it seem like you know something. But then, in light of the above, what is the profound and meaningful use of the following that caused you to emphasise a difference:

There's a difference between a terrorist and a violent person. A violent person will attack by DEFENDING (themselves, or others). A terrorist will attack by OFFENDING (themselves, or others).

Are these violent people who harm innocent people terrorists (offenders) or violents (defenders)?

I believe in the truth. I believe in what I see; what happens to me in life. What I know.

To me, it doesn't make sense.

So, you know nothing on this subject, obviously. What happened, then, to this truth that you believe in? What truth is it, again?

It must be stressed that these aren't the missions of the US military.

What are you, a wind-up political-military toy boy? Is that what you call high calibre thought?

These cases are soldiers taking out their war related stress on the masses, who don't deserve it. These people aren't "soldiers" in the true sense of the word, they're just human beings being placed in circumstances that they can't handle (or circumstances which cause them to make the wrong choices.

OK, so we shall reserve such rights to stress ventilation only for American "soldiers."

Definitely more later.

Partial transcript: The War Behind Closed Doors - PBS

WILLIAM KRISTOL, V.P. Chief of Staff '89-'92: You know, the president had urged Iraqis to rise up. There was a huge rebellion. We had helicopters right there, forces right there, obviously.

NARRATOR: And within days, Saddam had lost control of southern Iraq, where Shi'a Muslims took up arms. They were winning, but it wouldn't last. They were soon to be overwhelmed by Saddam's helicopter gunships.

WILLIAM KRISTOL: We allowed Saddam to suppress the rebellion as our forces stood by.

NARRATOR: American troops could see the fighting from their positions, but they were ordered not to intervene by President Bush. There are estimate that thousands of Shi'ites were killed.

TARIQ AZIZ, Deputy Prime Minister, Iraq: [1995] The Americans did not interfere. Therefore, it took us only a few days to recover from the surprise, to reorganize our troops, reorganize our resources and impose peace and order and the southern governors. It took us two weeks to do that.

NARRATOR: It was a defining moment for the hawks.

WILLIAM KRISTOL: That, I think, was a key moment. I know that Paul Wolfowitz was very unhappy at that moment, had argued that we should intervene. It was more that we-- more than that we hadn't removed Saddam, is that we had-- we had stood by and watched people we had encouraged to rise up against Saddam-- we stood by and watched them get slaughtered.

NARRATOR: Twelve years later, the former national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, talked about those decisions with FRONTLINE reporter Lowell Bergman.

[October 2001]

LOWELL BERGMAN, FRONTLINE: Wasn't there an uprising?

BRENT SCOWCROFT, Former National Security Adviser: Of course.

LOWELL BERGMAN: Didn't we see their military killing people?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Yes.

LOWELL BERGMAN: And we didn't intervene.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Of course not.

LOWELL BERGMAN: Not from the air.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: No. Of course not.

LOWELL BERGMAN: We didn't cut off their gasoline supplies.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Because-- OK, because-- first of all, one of our objectives was not to have Iraq split up into constituent parts because it's our-- it's a fundamental interest of the United States to keep a balance in that area--

LOWELL BERGMAN: So--

BRENT SCOWCROFT: --between Iraq and Iran.

LOWELL BERGMAN: --part of the reason not-- to not go after his army, at that point, was to make sure there was a unified country, whether or not--

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Well--

LOWELL BERGMAN: --it was ruled by Saddam.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Well, partly. But suppose we-- suppose we went in and intervened and the Kurds declare independence and the Shi'ites declare independence. Then do we go to war against them to keep a unified Iraq?

LOWELL BERGMAN: Well, why would we care, at that point? Our-- our interest, I thought, was--

BRENT SCOWCROFT: We care a lot.

LOWELL BERGMAN: I thought we had two interests. One was to evict the Iraqi army from Kuwait, but the other really was to get Saddam out--

BRENT SCOWCROFT: No.

LOWELL BERGMAN: --of power.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: No, it wasn't.

LOWELL BERGMAN: Well, either covertly or overtly.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: No. No, it wasn't. That was never-- you can't find that anywhere as an objective, either in the U.N. mandate for what we did or in our declarations, that our goal was to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Check todays Washington Post: U.S. Said To Misread Hussein On Arms: "Piece by piece, the intelligence presented that day [at the UN] by Powell has been shown to have been wrong". This is not journalist opinion but based on a final report from the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command.

Why would you trust such government for anything, like doing the groceries even? They should resign before even doing any foreign policy ever again. That's called sanity.

I think that's misleading Diebert. The article you link to, says that it was the intelligence agencies/analysts that made the mistakes, not the government.

From the article:

"U.S. intelligence agencies misinterpreted Saddam Hussein's directions that his military do away with weapons of mass destruction or their elements, believing incorrectly the orders were a ruse meant to hide evidence of such weapons from United Nations inspectors"

(I'm not personally saying that the government didn't lie or wasn't responsible though.)

Are you saying we should let these terrorists continue suicide bombing people who are trying to have weddings or vote? Would they back down if we just left abruptly?

Take your time...

Q1=no. Q2=You mean, would violence reduce in Iraq if the coalition left? Probably. If for no other reason, to make a statement.

The other poster: Yes they already have a way to stop an invasion, don't go nuclear and let others confirm it. That would almost guarantee it.

But Iran is not really interested in assuring the west of anything, other than that an islamic threat exists ans will continue to exist. Right now they have some power, but that would disappear if we could confirm they're defenseless. So they'll keep the west wondering and worrying as long as possible.

Jason wrote:I think that's misleading Diebert. The article you link to, says that it was the intelligence agencies/analysts that made the mistakes, not the government.

But where does the government base its decisions mainly on, apart from its intelligence reports, do you think? How would they know Iran is developing nukes? According to the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdogs who are actually in the country doing their checks still claims that "there is no indication that there are now any 'undeclared' source or special nuclear materials; nor is there any indication of any diversion of nuclear materials". This is what they reported now to the UN so I wonder how they can ever do sanctions based on this.

The only reason the UN security council is now involved, is the suspicion based on the work of several intelligence agencies, not unlike the situation in Iraq where Hans Blix declared the country 'clean' and the US claimed to have 'evidence' they never actually shared but after the invasion...

Again: it's all about certain 'intelligence reports' which are of course 'classified'. My point was that maybe governments should not use that anymore to justify actions, it's just not working anymore. More transparency is needed.

Lenny wrote:But Iran is not really interested in assuring the west of anything, other than that an islamic threat exists and will continue to exist.

As far as I can tell from what is publicly known, they have done exactly that what was required conforming international standards and treaties. They even did some more, voluntarily. They have every right to develop nuclear energy any way they want, under the watchful inspection of the IAEA so that in the future there society might benefit from the technological know-how, trade and commerce that might come from that.

Iran published a page-wide advertisement (PDF) on the 18th of November 2005 in the New York Times which seems to be quite rational, lucid and backed by facts that can be checked by everyone interested. I have respect for that and would like similar analysis from the ones who think Iran should not have nuclear technology. But they never seem able to give it. I think it's a problem of ignorance and in some cases deception and shadowy agendas. And no, I have no reason to believe Iran is the one doing all the deception - what do they have to gain? Anyway, it doesn't matter what I believe: deception has to be proven. Actions based on fear and suspicions are not wise.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But where does the government base its decisions mainly on, apart from its intelligence reports, do you think? How would they know Iran is developing nukes?

How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read.
-- Karl Kraus

I don't have time to respond. Send me an email at graysm@usa.com if you want to respond to something in particular...the topic has gone too far now.

Jason wrote:I think that's misleading Diebert. The article you link to, says that it was the intelligence agencies/analysts that made the mistakes, not the government.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But where does the government base its decisions mainly on, apart from its intelligence reports, do you think?

Sure, but your argument was that the government should resign, but the article says it was ultimately the intelligence agencies who made the mistakes. If the current government resigns, the next government would just have the same intelligence agencies and analysts feeding them info. It doesn't solve that problem.

Again: it's all about certain 'intelligence reports' which are of course 'classified'. My point was that maybe governments should not use that anymore to justify actions, it's just not working anymore. More transparency is needed.

Ok. You mean making the necessary classified intelligence reports public? There are obviously a lot of potential issues with that though. Blowing ongoing operations, putting peoples lives at risk, betraying intelligence sources etc. If the intelligence is incorrect it could still be used to justify the same incorrect actions even if it were made open. Just throwing around some ideas, this topic is losing my interest really.

My gut feeling is that the intelligence agencies did not fail. If there was an investigation into the entire affair -- on the scale of Watergate -- the shit would float all the way to the top where it belongs.

George Tenet took the fall for the failure of the CIA in 2004.

Easy out for the Bush administration.

Faizi

The link I posted is now obsolete.

Sorry. I will try to find the article elsewhere.

Faizi

Jason wrote:Sure, but your argument was that the government should resign, but the article says it was ultimately the intelligence agencies who made the mistakes. If the current government resigns, the next government would just have the same intelligence agencies and analysts feeding them info. It doesn't solve that problem.

No, my argument was that the current government appears to rely too heavily on flawed processes and analysis of raw intelligence. One should not assume the next government would behave in exactly the same manner, even if they might. And I didn't talk about resigning, I asked if one should trust such deluded government with a nuclear arsenal, compared to a Muslim fundamentalist government elsewhere.

Ok. You mean making the necessary classified intelligence reports public? There are obviously a lot of potential issues with that though.

Yeah, I do realize that. Not sure if 'going public' is what I meant. What could be a start is to let the analysis of raw intelligence be done by a larger group of political neutral parties (sworn secrecy perhaps). This to prevent too much of a political slant on things and preventing the tight hierarchy of a secret agency to make people afraid to protest or speak up. Many journalists have reported that the White House had set-up their own Iraq intelligence analysis group, by-passing the CIA even. This is because intelligence analysis becomes more and more a matter of political views and even philosophy (what is freedom, what is universal, which ally do we trust, etc).

Bottom line is that nobody seems to care how the intelligence could have been so wrong on Iraq on all matters (post-war planning, WMD, religious sects). Nobody seems to realize that perhaps not the data was wrong, but the interpreters were being selective and engaged in wishful thinking. Errors and poison in the well was not addressed with the usual caution.

Ultimately it's the White House that holds responsibility and there's no indication they've seen themselves as responsible for a slanted, one-sided, filtered, deluded view on things.

Unless responsibility is taken for failures, falsehoods will be added to falsehood and suffering continues.

sschaula wrote:I don't have time to respond. Send me an email at graysm@usa.com if you want to respond to something in particular...the topic has gone too far now.

The topic has clearly gone beyond your skills in reading and comprehension. That's okay. It's not that important, ultimately.

sschaula wrote:I don't have time to respond. Send me an email at graysm@usa.com if you want to respond to something in particular...the topic has gone too far now.

You have as much time to reply as you do to think.

You have been given much material to consider if you're really interested in the subject from any perspective other than an emotionally stunted one.

Go on, dare to be different.

Diebert, I think you're just as retarded as you think I am.

Leyla, I don't have any need to listen to idiots speak, or to speak with them.

I have all day to think, and I have no time to reply. I could make time, but I don't care to try and converse with robots. I woke up at 7 and just now have the free time to do whatever, for another half an hour. I'd rather spend that time learning something new, rather than doing the same thing I do with my "liberalesque" friends. It goes nowhere, because both sides are unwilling to give up their points of view. It's not a bad thing...just a boring thing, so I'm done. Like I said before, if you TRULY care for some odd reason, you have my email.

sschaula wrote:Diebert, I think you're just as retarded as you think I am.

Just rattling your cage, big guy. You're one of the smartest around here. But on this topic seriously deluded :)

I've seen your type everywhere in political discussions since the late 90's on the web. The pattern is the same. They make some bold statements (lets say pro-war or anti-US-critics) and when challenged fundamentaly with facts or reason, they have suddenly various excuses to leave the discussion instantly. Or just disappear. Sometimes they can be witnessed to 'carpet bomb' some opinion later on without engaging a debate.

My theory is that these people are still too attached to the idea of some 'noble cause' or justification of suffering. They can't believe human life is socialy dictated by the Lie and most people live and die without any good reason, sacrificed to the Lie, if anything. Like in the political world 'intelligence' is interpreted lethally wrong and immense suffering thereby is created, in the same way humans in general interpret their senses totally wrong and insane ideas about this world are born: suffering is created.

This is why political discussion can prove interesting as a measurement rod in how far someone is suspicious enough.

when challenged fundamentaly with facts or reason, they have suddenly various excuses to leave the discussion instantly.

It's like having your cake and eating it too. You get to have the strong views, and the luxury of never having to defend them. For them, the two don't go hand in hand. It's bizarre that they think they'll convince others with an unsupported view the same way they have been.

Scott wrote:

Like I said before, if you TRULY care for some odd reason, you have my email.

Care about what? The Bushes? The world? Politics? The middle-east? My family? You? Me? Truth? Reason?

Respect?

I would email but, for me, you are dangerous. You know -- young, virile, emotionally volatile. I do, and have indeed, loved and cared for your kind many times. I’d get carried away with my imagination. Then, it would go terribly wrong -- naturally -- and you’d be accusing me of much more than just idiocy. So, you see, I do care -- very much, in fact. Don‘t be mistaken. Just not in a way you can see or are prepared to accept.

Maybe you should start listening to music again. You seem to be growing old and settled well before your time.

Some of it is quite timeless and prophetic. That’s what I love about Pink Floyd.

Dogs.

You’ve got to be crazy
Gotta have a real need [ah, yes - need]
Gotta sleep on your toes, when you’re on the street
Got to be able to pick up the easy meat with your eyes closed
And then moving in silently, down-wind and out of sight
Gotta strike when the moment is right, without thinking

And after a while, you can work on points for style
Like the club tie and the firm handshake
A certain look in the eye - and an [oh so] easy smile
You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to
So that when they turn their backs on you
You’ll get the chance to put the knife in

Course, it’s not about the lyrics alone. Some damn fine lead guitar at this point. Runs like a shock suspending mind and body between a molten blanket of excruciating pain and soothing harmony. An incredible balance. A potent mix of conceptual and aural stimulants. Fuck, I still love it.

And when you lose control
You’ll reap the harvest you have sown
And as the fear grows the bad blood slows and turns to stone
And it’s too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around
So have a good drown
As you go down
All alone
Dragged down by the stone

And, before you perhaps jump on the paranoia band-wagon to neatly brush-off the truth about which they lament, consider the truth in this that pervades our societies:

And you believe at heart, everyone's a killer
Who was born in a house full of pain
Who was trained not to spit in the fan
Who was told what to do by the man
Who was broken by trained personnel
Who was fitted with collar and chain
Who was given a pat on the back
Who was breaking away from the pack
Who was only a stranger at home
Who was ground down in the end
Who was found dead on the phone
Who was dragged down by the stone

Is everyone a killer -- or just everyone in the Middle East?

I would email but, for me, you are dangerous. You know -- young, virile, emotionally volatile. I do, and have indeed, loved and cared for your kind many times. I’d get carried away with my imagination. Then, it would go terribly wrong -- naturally -- and you’d be accusing me of much more than just idiocy. So, you see, I do care -- very much, in fact. Don‘t be mistaken. Just not in a way you can see or are prepared to accept.

What are you saying? You could easily fall in love with me?

Maybe you should start listening to music again. You seem to be growing old and settled well before your time.

I have been a little bit now. I've been listening to Belle and Sebastian, as well as always making my own music. I hate Pink Floyd.

It's bizarre that they think they'll convince others with an unsupported view the same way they have been.

How was my view unsupported? Did you read what I originally wrote? I thought it contained everything.

I've seen your type everywhere in political discussions since the late 90's on the web. The pattern is the same. They make some bold statements (lets say pro-war or anti-US-critics) and when challenged fundamentaly with facts or reason, they have suddenly various excuses to leave the discussion instantly. Or just disappear. Sometimes they can be witnessed to 'carpet bomb' some opinion later on without engaging a debate.

I don't think I'm irrational for acting this way. It's just that I'm not generally stirred until I hear or see something. Like if I see a woman acting retarded, it gets me thinking all day. If I hear something on talk radio, it causes me to think about that all day. If I read something stimulating on here, I think about that as well. If I'm just doing whatever, I tend to think about the nature of things...basically cause and effect/emptiness. For example, if I'm swimming I'm contemplating what I am, what the water is, our characteristics, the feelings versus how things actually are. I'm like a scientist with no awards or schooling.

So the reason why I tend to not have discussions is that I like my centeredness. If I listen to too many viewpoints at once, I tend to stray from my own wisdom, because I'm actually a believer at heart. If you say "the sky is purple" and it isn't to me, I'll actually believe what you're saying til I study everything and find out that you're just a liar. If you say "Bush is stupid", I analyze it and find it's untrue after taking it on as my own thought. If you say "The war in Iraq is pointless" I begin thinking along those lines as well, until I realize you're wrong.

I have an open mind. I think pretty much anyone has an open mind, as long as they visit the Genius Forum. Someone closed minded, like the type you described, wouldn't have the balls to come here. At first, the name itself would turn them off. Then the crazy conversation...the little sarcastic quips by prince, the apparent misogyny, the seeming anti-religious sentiment. You have to either be desperate or strong to visit this place. So it's wrong to assume anyone here is like the type you described...running away from truth. Sure, there are spiritual seekers that come here with their views which are hard to drop, but as is apparent by their views, they're pretty much ready to drop their views as they'd done their previous lives. The reason they don't drop their beliefs is that they have been told all their lives to equate Buddhism, Taoism, or whatever, with RELIGION.

Anyway,

My theory is that these people are still too attached to the idea of some 'noble cause' or justification of suffering. They can't believe human life is socialy dictated by the Lie and most people live and die without any good reason, sacrificed to the Lie, if anything.

Luckily, I've seen through my own mortality, and daily question my own life as well as the ideals I hold. What it comes down to for me is two ideas. The first is that I should be robotic in my morality. If something is good, I promote it. If something is bad, I don't promote that. What makes something good or bad is sometimes confusing...in those cases I choose the greater good, even if something is bad. Some of this takes looking into the future, as well as looking at the past....looking at most likely effects of what's happening now.

I'm not afraid of being wrong. If I made a wrong decision with the attempt of doing the right thing, that's okay. I'm enlightened. I know that I don't live on, beyond my actions. I know that even if I do good forever, people will suffer. I know that suffering is an illusion. I'm an illusion, and so is everything in this world. This knowledge doesn't stop me from doing the right thing. Logically, it's good to do good and bad to do bad. Although all of this is merely an illusion, it's a real one, and there are real events within this.

Anyway, beyond a noble cause or a justification of suffering, I look at people like they're myself, and that's the main reason for the things I believe in. If I cause harm to someone else, I cause harm to myself in a sense. If I spit on the ground, someone else's spit is bound to end up on me. If I throw trash on someone's yard, someone else is bound to come litter on my lawn. I believe that the more good I do, the more it tends to rub off on people while they're around me. If I'm peaceful, people will feel peace around me. If I'm violent, I'll inspire people to violence. If I'm sad, I bring down the mood. I try to bring an enlightened mood constantly, in order to inspire people towards what I've learned.

Suprisingly, most adults don't have any idea of who I am. I don't fit into a category, unless I try. I'm a bright blank slate, and they see themselves in me; and depending on the person, they either like me or become disturbed.

Back to what you said though, yes people are seemingly stupid. Instead of viewing things like that though, I view things in more optimistic terms. I think people are full of potential to do right, learn the truth, and become accepting of this life...even moving on to a love for life. They bustle about, thinking about which sports team will win, or the next barbeque they will have with their friends, or "wow I want to stick it in her"...yes, it's all "mundane". It's just how things are, though. If God wanted everyone to know the truth right now, then they would. It's not my choice. I don't have any negative feelings about it. In fact, it's a greater chance for me to improve my wisdom...sharpening it...by looking at these pathetic people. I can relate to them in a way, also. It's interesting to study them, when they do things I wouldn't expect. Love is something really interesting to me...something I don't understand at all. What causes girls to go bipolar on guys who love them. What causes guys to love girls. How married couples go on in life...it's actually very interesting since divorce rates seem to be constantly on the rise. I wonder what will happen.

Moving on,

Like in the political world 'intelligence' is interpreted lethally wrong and immense suffering thereby is created, in the same way humans in general interpret their senses totally wrong and insane ideas about this world are born: suffering is created.

I wonder how intelligence is interpreted in the political world. That world is so diverse in beliefs that I bet it has numerous definitions for each party, aimed at the opposing parties, usually in the negative. I don't see what it has to do with humans misinterpreting their senses.

Anyway, suffering seems unavoidable.

This is why political discussion can prove interesting as a measurement rod in how far someone is suspicious enough.

Suspicion doesn't necessarily equal intelligence, or even a mind immersed in true thoughts of reality. It equals seeking. Questioning is good, but it shouldn't be "worshipped". Once you find the answers, you stick with them. That's how you should be.

I would email but, for me, you are dangerous. You know -- young, virile, emotionally volatile. I do, and have indeed, loved and cared for your kind many times. I’d get carried away with my imagination.


Take me...lol

Are you Asian. Intelligent westernised asians give me the horn, and Leyla is one of my fav names (I think because the Layla from the Clan of the Cave Bear series was sexy to me when I was a kid). That you used to be involved with a criminal dude is also sexy - means you have the right sort of open mind and are likely to be attractive.

Of course I'm not serious - I'm no longer capable of the "acting" requirements involved in relationships. Plus I think you might be going crazy.

Come on, Jamesh. Everyone knows you mean it when you say "Take me".

When will you realize that you must take HER?

But seriously, do people understand what the west is up to? What a long-lasting and risky affair this war on terrorism is? Not to mention painful and deadly.

sschaula:
Yes, people do understand.

I have my doubts.
People believe this war may be over in a reasonable period of time, but Bush has always known that the terrorist war will go on and on with no end in sight.
People believe American troops are now there to provide security for Iraqies until such time as Iraq can protect itself, but Bush has always known that the boys are required to attract and anihilate as many Islamist rebels as possible, and will stay put until such time as the people protest and force their return.
People believe there is some small hope these two religions will some day come to terms despite their differences, but Bush has always known he must eventually destroy everyone who hates and disagrees with him.