AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Social Darwinism?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Disabled Man shot by the IDF

OK - so this retarded guy goes up to threaten Israeli troops during a raid instead of hiding and gets shot. Good Job.

Another one - this kid runs up to Israeli Soldiers, I repeat, runs up to Israeli Soldiers, with what turned out to be a toy gun (but not from a distance) and tells them to leave....and gets dusted for obvious reasons.

Social Darwinism or something? What, what is with these people?
What is social darwinism?
That's horrible. I understand why the Israelis would not be surprised to find a 12-year Palestinian with a gun, but still, chalking this up to Social Darwinism seems wrong. The kid was 12 years old.

And they shot a woman. I blame the IDF for this one.
Anon Wrote:And they shot a woman. I blame the IDF for this one.

Do you have enough information to blame anyone?

Here is what BBC said:

BBC Wrote:On Monday, Israeli troops shot and killed a 25-year-old Gaza woman near the border fence between the territory and Israel

Do you know anything we do not?
Good, I am glad you found it horrible.

People need a good jolt at times. And I am serious. (Also, we don't know the full scoop as to why the woman was shot, do we?)

So - I am going to broaden this: If a people were to collectively do something stupid (ie vote in Hamas to lead them), wouldn't the end result (pending in this case) be because they weren't able to grasp what needed to be done to survive in the future (ie. not elect Hamas for starters)?

This, we cannot blame another competitor in the environment, the Israelis, for, who were acting in terms of what needed to be done (this case: shooting what came off as a threat in a possibly letal situation, or destroying Hamas and re-occupying territory), but on people who brought it upon themselves (finally coming back to the people who get killed like this for doing stupid shyt).
Sorry for barging into your conversation, but I heard that the rival of Hamas named Fatkh (sp?) was too corrupt and people were to tired of it.
They say, Fatkh was stuffed with funds from EU and US.
Of course.

So - they were not elected due to their incompetance. They didn't make it......
Anon, you are using the very same criticism that is heaped on the police, when they shoot a criminal, without first asking him/her if they REALLY intended harm to anyone, including themselves. Warriors are trained repeatedly, to react without thinking, lest they, themselves, be killed in the process.

Having been in combat, which you obviously have not, I always believed, and justifiably so, that my life was more important to the mission than the other guy. And anyone Stupid enough to Look like a dangerous person, is most likely Dangerous as well, in reality. You simply shoot first, and THEN assess the situation. It is SOP all over the world: except amongst "limp wristed" Wooses. And "limp wristed" Wooses never survive the Darwinian Meat Grinder that is called Real Life. That is why so few of them pass their genes on to the next generation. And that is why they also have the Darwin Awards, for the top of the line in this group.

Sorry, but you are wrong on this one, in Spades!
Well, I find it strange how conservatives always accuse liberals of being not strong enough for real life, not strong enough to succeed, etc., yet the average self-identified liberal in this country makes significantly more money than the average self-identified conservative. The conservatives seem to always forget that 'survival of the fittest' also includes intelligence. Why else would so many living in the South turn their education system into a laughing-stock, and so decrease the chances their children will have the skills to survive in our society?

And judging by the advertisements at places like Newsmax, Freerepublic, and the National Review, quite frankly I'd say the average conservative is far from succeeding in this life.

As for the shooting, I said that I understand why the IDF would shoot him. However, part of the problem is that they are there, in civilian areas, to begin with.
And speaking of not being perceived to be strong enough, I just heard Paul Begallia on WPTF this morning. The early show host was interviewing him live at 7:30 and after talking about Texas football, he asked Begallia what he would recommend that the Dems change.

He stated, without hesitation, that the Dems fatal weakness was that they were not strong enough, and were perceived as being extremely weak. So, if the "Forehead" can see this and tell everyone, then why can't you and the rest of the left wing of the Left party, see this? and when some one has a gun pointed at you, or what passes for one, you don't stop and think, " I wonder why he is so outraged? Did he have an unloved childhood? Should I try to reason with him first?" Bang, Bang!! Too late, you are DEAD!"

Now, your argument here is that it is outrageous for some soldier to shoot someone who was a perceived threat to his safety. This makes you appear so soft, that nobody in their right mind is going to vote for a party full of Wooses.

Do you perceive my point here? You guys are S-O-F-T, when the Stupid Republicans are S-T-R-O-N-G. Actually, they are a bunch of cowards, and cringe when the Jackasses bray at over 110 dbs. But they are PERCEIVED as being Strong. That is only one of the reasons why you guys are on the pavement, wishing you could be readmitted back into the administration building.

And until you are able to get your(third person) perverbial Sh!t together and grow a backbone, you are going to remain on the outside looking in. Sorry, but this is true.
Because we don't believe that you should wrongly wage war in the name of appearing strong.
Anonymous24 Wrote:Because we don't believe that you should wrongly wage war in the name of appearing strong.

You see what I Mean? You just don't get it, and this is why the Jackasses are going to remain the minority party for two or more generations. So, get used to it.
Don't get it? The purpose of leaders isn't to fool the people into believing that they're strong by supporting unwise policies.

BTW the fall of the Republican is a lot closer than you think.
Somebody give this person a french fry lol

Seriously though.....Nawwwwwww He couldn't hear the truth if someone gave him the french fry. !2 year old kids are unguided missles, as are women in some parts of the world.
Ken
Anonymous24 Wrote:Don't get it? The purpose of leaders isn't to fool the people into believing that they're strong by supporting unwise policies.

BTW the fall of the Republican is a lot closer than you think.

Anon. let's use some logic here for a few minutes, ok. The entire history of this country shows that one party tends to assume majority status for an extended time, as trends do not turn on a dime. The Democratic Republicans(now the Democrats) took the majority from the Federalists and did not give it up until the Republican Party rose out of the ashes of the Whigs. The Republicans carried this majority from 1860 until the 1932 election. From then until 2000, the Democrats remained the majority party, although there is some disagreement about the 2000 year mark. many think that 1994 elections are the mark. I will go along with 2000 as the Official date.

Now, if you look at all these shifts, they do not occur quickly or many times. it is like what happened to the American auto industry. Once they lost their allure, they are having the devil of a time regaining it. Same with the Dems. This thing of a majority is like the aircraft carrier. It does not turn on a dime, and now that the momentium has shifted, it will be several generations before the Dems regain things.

Now, if you look at the issues, there is not ONE issue that the Dems have that is geared to the future. Not one! They have no issues about allowing CHOICE of education, CHOICE of Social Security, CHOICE of individual states rather than the Federal Government. Their choices are not geared to the future, and believe me, the centralization of power, issues, welfare, education, etc, etc, are not geared towards decentralization. Rather they are being shoved further to the Collectivist Left, which is exactly the OPPOSITE of the future.

You guys are going to have to get some new found Religion and get with the program, or heaven help you guys, you will be wandering in the wilderness longer than Moses and crew. Trust me on this one. I am Right on that.

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but I expect you guys to become competitive and give the Stupid Republicans a run for the money. I really do. So give your leaders the business and get them moving soonest.
You're right. However, these cycles tend to go in 35-40 years. The Republicans have been in power since 1969, when they devised the 'Southern strategy' that has allowed them to retain power since then.

For instance, look:

Republicans: 1896-1932(started with Mckinley's election and rejection of populism, ended with the Great Depression and election of Roosevelt)

During this time the U.S. government was isolationist and pursued laissez-faire policies.


Democrats: 1933-1968(started with Roosevelt's election, ended with Vietnam and the American people's rejection of the 60s revolution(except for the part about sex) with the election of Nixon)

This was the era of 'big-government', in both the New Deal and the 1950s, and of course the social revolutions of the 60s.


Republicans: 1968-2004/2008(started with Nixon's election, ends with the Republican party's implosion at the hands of Bush's failed policies)

This period saw the rise of Reagan and return of conservatism after the 1960s and 70s. Clinton, a Democratic president, had to govern conservatively because the period was conservative.


Every day there's some new article about how Republican politicians are running scared. They know the damage Bush has done to their party.
Anon Wrote:The purpose of leaders isn't to fool the people into believing that they're strong by supporting unwise policies.
See? This assumes two things, that there is an unwise policy that you can see but all the dumb people can't, and that leaders also understand your lunacy and need to inveigle others into support by trickery. Both assertions are based on your personal ego, supported by your arrogance that you know best. Yet, this would have been a good forum to prove your points if you could, but you chose not to.

That leaves us to recognize the true fooling of the people is on your side. You want others to believe as you do, but you have so little faith in your own arguments that you refuse to participate.

Perhaps it is just insecurity, fear of personal ignorance that we all know something that you missed, so you might appear unable to walk on water if you say something that is easily disproved, that holds your tongue. If so, please understand we will be gentle but thorough. If you have a point, make it. But expect follow-up questions that might lead to a logical refutation of your position. Those Left-wing web sites that most Leftists use to spark their arguments seldom have much depth or facts to support their accusations. You may actually need to roll up your sleeves and do some first-person research of your own.

You may wish to start with the newly released Saddam tapes where he admits his program of WMD, and that had we not attacked Iraq with our "unwise policy" his WMD would now be in the hands of Terrorists around the World.
The invasion of Iraq was unwise for a number of reasons:

-it increased anti-Muslim sentiment, meaning more Muslims will become terrorists

-it increased anti-American sentiment everywhere, meaning the leaders of those countries now have more trouble cooperating with us, hurting our interests

-there were no WMDs

-the American military is now tied down, when there are far greater threats than Saddam Hussein ever was, for instance Iran, North Korea, and China

-we can't build a democracy in Iraq because the people are scared, poor, and diverse; unfortunately we can't fix any of those problems either

-ultimately it will humiliate us in front of the world and make America's enemies think we're weak when we're forced to leave
Anonymous24 Wrote:The invasion of Iraq was unwise for a number of reasons:

-there were no WMDs
WmLambert's response above:You may wish to start with the newly released Saddam tapes where he admits his program of WMD, and that had we not attacked Iraq with our "unwise policy" his WMD would now be in the hands of Terrorists around the World.


Anonymous24 Wrote:-we can't build a democracy in Iraq because the people are scared, poor, and diverse; unfortunately we can't fix any of those problems either.
I know you've posted one person's opinion on this somewhere else, but this argument seems a little weak in that approx. 90% of the world's population is in the same boat. They are doomed to never have democracy?

Anonymous24 Wrote:ultimately it will humiliate us in front of the world and make America's enemies think we're weak when we're forced to leave.
Not any more than when Carter pulled out of Iran after telling the Shah that we had his back, which allowed that pro-democracy/West country to be overrun and overthrown, with the current crop of Islamist mulluhs calling the shots, or when we abandoned Afghanistan after the Afghanistan/Russian war which allowed Afghanistan to be overtaken by the Taliban and AQ.

Ergo, all of which is the genesis of this very conversation you and I are now having, as is the rest of the world.
As for anti-Muslim sentiment, that is either appropriate or not. It may well be an appropriate response to a vicious agenda, or it may be an unwarranted reaction to provocation caused by that agenda. Either way the response is produced by those who create the problems in the first place.

Rather than increase the number of Terrorists, the defeat of the leaders of the Terrorist movement slows the funding and recruitment of impressionable cannon fodder. Recruitment is always highest on the winning side. The American soldiers re-up to retuen to Iraq at a far higher rate than al Qaeda can indoctrinate suicide bombers. The leaders invest their efforts in Iraq, because they understand what losing there means to their future plans. The argument that the war is over there and not over here is completely valid.

As for anti-American sentiment, that is entirely debateable. There are frustrated angliophobes who estimate their own worth by measuring themselves against the U.S. and then rationalize their failures by denigrating success elsewhere. Women are subjugated and routinely beaten and even killed for the crime of being a victim of rape in Muslim countries, and the Muslims then censure the U.S. for allowing women to be treated fairly and with dignity. Yes, there is anti-American sentiment and they can just stick it sideways where the moon don't shine.

Do some research. Read SoloNav's post. The no WMD's never worked, and now you just look silly.

If you think the U.S. is tied down, then I suppose you could see what it takes to overcome us. I've heard many Pentagon sources laugh at the over-stretched concept. We have far-flung bases all over the world for that very purpose, and Condi Rice and the DefSec just did a major redistribution to get meaningful numbers where they are most valuable. We had three million G.I.s in Germany after WWII, and our population has tripled since then - as well as has the multiplier effect been raised exponentially. Our major concern is maximum effect with zero casualties, not in sheer numbers.

And it is silly to act like the people in Iraq are not affected by our help. Doesn't the return of their oil fields to the people of Iraq mean anything? We never imagined a Western-style democracy in Iraq. The culture wiil need to grow and adapt and create democratic process that works best for them. The Sunnis and Shia are both involved in the process, and whatever comes out in the end will be far better for them and for the world, than what held sway before. Uday's rape rooms are closed, and the WMD manufacturing labs are closed. The people are beginning to live again and to prosper. What comes in the future will be their own creation.
Pages: 1 2 3