Posts by Seeker

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

Human rights apply to anyone who is human, and these guys qualify. If you start handing out human rights only to those you think worthy of them, then you have no reason to complain when a Chinese court won't allow an American to defend himself in the way you think he should, or when a Taliban government official decrees that a woman is deserving of death for showing her face in public. Everybody has a different definition of who is "worthy" of rights, so the only sane course is to say that all humans deserve the same basic human rights. As soon as you start deciding who is worthy and who is not, you lose the high moral ground.

To me, those who say these prisioners don't deserve humane treatment are like those who like free speech -- except when that speech bothers them, and then they want to ban it. Free speech means you defend that which you find despicable, or else it has no meaning as a concept. Same thing with human rights. If you can't extend the most basic of human dignities to a human you despise, then it has no meaning and you lose the high moral ground.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

The U.S. does not believe in fundamental freedoms -- when it suits them. If an "enemy" country oppresses its citizens, then the U.S. gets all righteously indignant about how awful it is that they don't preserve basic human rights for its citizens. When a "friend" country does the exact same thing, the U.S. covers it up as best it can. Pragmatic to the end.

Not just the U.S., of course. This is typical of most nations. "Power corrupts" -- that phrase means something.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

The USA has never before taken upon itself to wipe out a terrorist group.

Nope, but the USA has taken upon itself to declare war on drugs. That's certainly gone well...

Fifty years from now, when the "war" on terrorism is till going strong, and terrorists are as numerous as ever, and people keep dying in their attacks, and the rights of U.S. citizens have been reduced to approximately the rights of airline passengers in terminals, then perhaps we'll be able to look back and see what might have been done differently.

Right now, they are making things up as they go along, and I'm sure I would make plenty of mistakes if I were in their shoes too. The way I see it, there are two ways to wipe out terrorism, neither of which will work:

1. The iron hand: Kill all the terrorists -- oops, a new one was just born! Oh well...
2. The enlightened hand: Work to help free the world from poverty and want -- oops, religious hatred rears its head anyway! Oh well...

Terrorism works because it is so effective. Not that it gets results, but it provides a semblance of power to the powerless. Since this world will always be set up with those in power and those out of power, terrorism will never end. Not as long as there is even one pebble on the ground to throw at someone in power.

13

A Beautiful Mind

by hungry4life in

jw
friends

anybody seen this ron howard film yet?

i think it is the best movie i have seen in a very long time.

highly reccomended.

Seeker

They are remarried. From the New York Times review of the movie:

Before he married Alicia, with whom he had a son named John, he fathered another child, also named John, with a woman named Eleanor Stiers, and abandoned both mother and child to poverty. He formed a number of intense, apparently sexual bonds with other men, and he lost his security clearance and his position at the RAND Corporation after he was arrested for soliciting sex in a men's room in Santa Monica, Calif. When his illness became intractable and his behavior intolerable, Alicia divorced him. (They remarried last June.)

13

A Beautiful Mind

by hungry4life in

jw
friends

anybody seen this ron howard film yet?

i think it is the best movie i have seen in a very long time.

highly reccomended.

Seeker

I'm very much looking forward to seeing this movie as it looks great. Just remember to think of it as fiction, however. The real John Nash was nothing like this Hollywoodized, cleaned-up version.

24

I challenge Joelbear to a DUEL

by Mindchild in

jw
friends

mindchild vs. joelbear.

aka skipper aka joel.

in the view of jurors of the grand jury of participants of simons board, within the website of jehovahswitnesses.com, hereby one mindchild summons one joelbear, on or about, henceforth, the date of this post, to a duel of competing paradigms.

Seeker

Joel, you are exaggerating and you know it. Nobody is making the assertions you stated, and if they are, they are wrong so why worry about them? I stand as someone who knows the WTS is wrong, can prove it at will, and also acknowledges much good among the JWs, both in their teachings and their person. Yet I am not being driven away from here, and neither are you. If someone is driving you away, let them drive themselves off a cliff while you just go on being you.

51

Favorite movie line?

by gilwarrior in

what is your favorite movie line?

please mention the movie line and why it is the best.. my favorite movie line:.

"ever since i was a kid...i always wanted to be a gangster.".

Seeker

Too many to pick a favorite. Here are some I loved:

From Henry V, Kenneth Branagh's version, with the music swelling, and Henry is addressing his troops before going out to battle in which some of them would die, tells them how lucky they are to be fighting that day:

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by from this day until the ending of the world but we in it shall be remembered. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother. Be he ne'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition, and gentlemen in England now abed shall think themselves acursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks, that fought with us upon St. Crispin's day!

But for memorable movie lines, I don't think anyone has topped Mae West yet. Note this selection of lines from just one movie, I'm No Angel, where she plays a woman named Tira:

Rajah: You were born in August.
Tira: Yeah, one of the hot months.
Rajah: It was on the 17th under the sign of Leo, the Lion.
Tira: Aw, King of the Beasts, huh.
Rajah: Ah, you have a wonderful future. I see a man in your life.
Tira: What, only one?
Rajah: But this is one very particular man. He is very wealthy, enormously wealthy.
Tira: ...What does he look like?
Rajah: I see he has brown eyes. In fact, I see two men...two different men. In the near future, I see a change....I see a change of position.
Tira: Sitting or reclining?...
Rajah: The horoscope. Keep this where you may consult it frequently.
Tira: All right, I'll take it to bed with me.

Tira: Married five times!...Wedding bells must sound like an alarm clock to you.
The Chump: I don't suppose you believe in marriage, do you?
Tira: Only as a last resort...What do you do for a livin'?
The Chump: Oh, uh, sort of a politician.
Tira: I don't like work either.
The Chump: Oh, you know I like to get around and travel, and believe me I've been places and seen things.
Tira: I've been things and seen places. That sorta evens us up, huh?

Big Bill: I changed my mind.
Tira: Does it work any better?

Reporter: Why did you admit knowing so many men in your life?
Tira: Well, it's not the men in your life that counts, it's the life in your men.

Jack: Tonight, you were especially good.
Tira: When I'm good, I'm very good. But when I'm bad, I'm better.

31

This web site, your comments as evidence

by joelbear in

jw
friends

in the case of silent lambs versus the christian congregation of jehovah's witnesses.. did you ever think that discussing these cases here accompanied by your vitriole against all things watchtower could be used to:.

1. show that ex jehovahs witnesses harbor such a hatred for the watchtower society that they will say anything to discredit them.. 2. show that there is a network of ex jehovahs witnesses that may have helped to create these abuse accusations in the alledged victims' minds or at least have encouraged them, even unwittingly, to exaggerate their claims.. i guarantee you that the watchtower society has documented every word anyone here has said, especially on this issue.

i can easily see a defense team using it to, if not exonerate accused molesters and the watchtower society, to at least create a reasonable doubt regarding their guilt.. if your hatred of the watchtower causes you to join in irrational behavior and accusations, you have to contemplate the fact that you may be adding to the future grief of any real victims.. i present this for your thoughtful consideration.. as always, i wish all here peace.. joel

Seeker

Yes, Joel, it would be nice to not have all the vitriol spread about here, but that is how some people cope with their emotions, and it won't end. As for the WTS using our words against us, so what? They have been documented to tell out-and-out lies in courts of law. So if they didn't have evidence against us, they would just make stuff up anyway!

You are defeding an organization that, while it has some very nice people in it, is run by people who knowingly or unknowingly perpetuate lies and fraud upon six million followers. It is a thoroughly dishonest organization, as large organizations tend to get over time.

33

W. busy 'restoring dignity to the White House'

by Seeker in

jw
friends

just a reminder to all those partisan politics folks that both republicans and democrats are dirty, lying thieves through and through.

conservatives enjoyed piling on clinton and getting all frothy about how he dishonered the dignity of the white house.

then george w. promised to 'restore dignity to the white house' and instead of viewing this as a typical political lie to get elected, conservatives bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Seeker

Thanks for the excellent comments that have been added to the thread. Some follow-up responses:

1. I don't have a link to the information about Bush's speech as I read it offline. It was in a New Yorker article from sometime in October.

2. That NSA information was interesting, though I have read about it all before in my searches. I did know about the intercepts of communication before 9/11. If they had only analyzed the data sooner, they would have had all the warning they needed. So the next time Congress tries to push through some unneeded new laws to "protect us" from terrorism, just remember they already had the info they needed ahead of time without any new laws.

3. So was Bush's comment not a lie but a stupid blunder instead? Possibly Bush goofed and his men covered up for him by lying themselves. That I could not say with any degree of certainty, and I acknowledge that this is a possible explanation other than a direct lie.

4. I do not think Bush is doing the best job during these times. As I have said in other threads, I'm horrified at the rush of new legistlation the conservatives have pushed through Congress in order to increase the powers of surveillance of the government at the expense of the rights of citizens. Other posters have articulated nicely their views that differ from mine on this subject, but that is my take on the subject.

5. I don't agree that we pick the best man of a bad lot. I don't believe Presidents are in charge, and therefore I don't think it makes any fundamental difference who gets in. The PR masters and corporate interests call the shots, and nothing we do makes any difference except on a local level and in limited ways. Power corrupts. The higher up you go, the more universal the corruption. At the congressional and presidential level, it is almost a job requirement.

6. My views are cynical, informed, and fully my own. Feel free to disagree completely.

33

W. busy 'restoring dignity to the White House'

by Seeker in

jw
friends

just a reminder to all those partisan politics folks that both republicans and democrats are dirty, lying thieves through and through.

conservatives enjoyed piling on clinton and getting all frothy about how he dishonered the dignity of the white house.

then george w. promised to 'restore dignity to the white house' and instead of viewing this as a typical political lie to get elected, conservatives bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Seeker

Like I said I’m not really a political person myself, never even voted, not yet anyway; but I was wondering, specifically, what was the lie W told to the American people?

A few days after 9/11, Bush spoke to the American people before a joint session of Congress. During his speech, he directly implicated Osama bin Laden, saying the evidence tying him to the hijackings was conclusive. In the week that followed that speech, four different, highly-placed cabinet and military leaders were quoted in an in-depth article as saying this was not true, that they did not yet have enough information to tie the hijackers to anyone.

Since then, every time a new video surfaces, the Administration leaps to shout, "Aha! Finally proof!", even though they keep insisting they had conclusive proof long ago. Regardless, and no matter how much evidence has since surfaced implicating bin Laden, in his speech to the American people a few days after 9/11, Bush lied.

When Clinton lied, it was about his private sex life, in a court of law. When Bush lied, it was about national security interests, to the American people before Congress.