On Cowardice

Yorick,

I did not disregard your comments of the girl who had been tortured and raped. I did not disregard the comment on your co-worker.

All I asked you to do was to back up and ask yourself if you knew *all* there was to know about this particular religion so that you could make such definitive statements as absolute truth. We all carry biases which are radically affected by experiences of our own or those about us which have touched our lives in a meaningful way. In no way did I suggest that these experiences you speak of were inconsequestial. I would say, however, based on the information gleaned from my own reading of texts, etc. and interviews of joe blows who purport to call satanism their 'religion' that these others are the exception rather than the rule.

Yes, if this be the case, it would be reasonable to assume that they would indeed change the name of their religion rather than be grouped with the evil-doers. Yet they obviously do not feel the need to. That is their choice, lamentable though it may be in general (for the understanding if there are indeed gross misrepresentations of their beliefs). However, the Catholic Church did not change their name in light of the atrocities of the Inquisition which were far wider spread.

I also decry evil and do whatever is in my power to counteract it in any small way. But I also know that when we are hurting inside and angry at a world which is too harsh and seemingly uncaring of our pain, it is difficult to differentiate between the hand out to help and the hand out to press down. My hand is out --to help. I have no initials behind my name denoting myself as qualified to treat the human mind. All I have is human compassion.

If I have offended you in my posts, I apologize as this was not my intention. Instead I meant to do as I stated above.

It is often far easier to see the trees and lose sight of the forest.

Garnet

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: AHHHHHHHH...GETTING-SUCKED-IN-AGAIN--- *resists the urge to slap Dio and G'Kar* Dio...you drive me nuts buddy. You are incredibly eloquent and insightful. But at the same time the most minutia driven, arrogant SOB I know! 2/3 or your posts in the last 3 or 4 days have been quibbles about defenitions or points so minor that they have absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand. Or deliberate flamebaiting/bomb dropping. As for your efforts to 'educate' your poor, mentally benighted fellow countrymen, that is so absolutely arrogant as to be unbelievable! You insult people, provoke them, belittle their intelligence or common sense, and then seem to get some perverse sense of satisfaction when they lose their temper, while, at the same time, bitchng about their attitudes and getting your nose out of joint. That is very hypocritical and again, terribly arrogant. I can defenitely see the prosecuting attorney in you. That's not a joke or a shot BTW. I think its a reflection of the fact that you are probably very good at your job. G'Kar...you shouldn't be encouraging him. *Takes off flameproof silver suit, drops into lotus position, and prepares his mind for incipent hammering that is sure to follow*

No flames, Nachtrafe, just sadness that you are perceiving me and what I am saying in that way.

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: First of all, I only wish war was as clean as you think it needs to be. Second of all, is it our fault that the Iraqi's set up their military targets in the middle of civilian populations? If they had been building a nuclear weapon under a hospital, would tat hospital have been a viable military target? What do you believe? I know what I believe. I'd have blown that place to kingdom come!!! What about a chemical weapons factory in an elementary school. Is that a viable target? Damn straight it is! Especially in the hands of a man that is willing to use such weapons! I was in the Gulf War. I regret now that we didn't finish him off, but I didn't feel that way at the time. At the time I was afraid that the rest of the Arab world would turn on us and we'd have to fight our way back out. I think that's waht a lot of our people thought too. If I had it to do over again Saddam would be died and his head on a gate in Bagdad for all the world to see. I also regret that we didn't help the Shites in the south and the Kurds in the north after the war was over. Especailly when they came begging at our compound gate for weapons to fight Saddam with. That was another mistake. But I in NO WAY regret ever going over there and doing what we did! Never!!! And yes I know what I ws there for. It was OIL plain and simple! If Saddom had gotten control over the Arabia oil fields, we'd all be cowtailling down to him now!!!

I do not have any such illusions about war regarding it being clean. I am keenly aware that it is a dirty, nasty, sloppy, terrible business. As the infamous General Sherman (infamous in the south at least ) said succintly: "War is Hell."

It is precisely for that reason that I think war should be entered only as the absolute last resort, when all other options have been exhausted.

Regarding the Gulf War, that was another case of us jumping into war mode hastily and unnecessarily. I will not elaborate further on this point in this post, as the many statements regarding the US never doing anything seriously wrong in other threads has made me decide to start a few history threads addressing this point and others, when I have a chance. Look for such a thread, in the hopefully near future

[Sazerac]

Hear, hear, Dio! (applauds) "A last resort." Yes, like a surgery. In one's health, one always looks for alternative forms of treatment rather than submit oneself to the radical treatment of surgery. Sometimes, though, it is a necessary evil, and sometimes good tissue has to be wounded to get to the bad tissue. It is the same way with war. One hopes and prays that it doesn't come, and one tries to find as many possible solutions to come to an agreement without it. But if all else has failed, then if it must be, it must be. Let it be quick, and decisive, and may as much "good" be spared in getting rid of the "bad."

War is neither grand nor glorious. It's a terrible, terrible, business. Sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes not.

One of my favorite passages from Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind" is Rhett Butler speaking at the Wilkes' barbecue, on the upcoming Civil War:

"The trouble with most of us Southerners," continued Rhett Butler, "is that we either don't travel enough or we don't profit enough by our travels. Now, of course, all you gentlemen are well-traveled. But what have you seen? Europe and New York and Philadelphia, and of course, the ladies have been to Saratoga" (he bowed slightly to the group under the arbor). "You've seen the hotels and the museums and the halls and the gambling houses. And you've come home believing that there's no place like the South. As for me, I was Charleston born, but I have spent the last few years in the North." His white teeth shown in a grin, as though he realized that everyone present knew just why he know longer lived in Charleston, and cared not at all if they did know. "I have seen many things that you all have not seen. The thousands of immigrants who'd be glad to fight for the Yankees for food and a few dollars, the factories, the foundries, the shipyards, the iron and coal mines--all the things we haven't got. Why all we have are cotton and slaves and ... arrogance. They'd lick us in a month."

------------------


[This message has been edited by Sazerac (edited 10-10-2001).]

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: However...the Rules of Engagement in times of War are quite different. Heck. The defenition of murder in the UMJC is different that the civilian law one. You might want to read up on that before you start applying criminal(US) law to a military(International) situation. And peruse the Geneva Accords at the same time.

I know that civilian law is thrown out the window in times of war. I was using the law of Murder simply as an example regarding the nature of INTENT.

[Moridin]

Originally posted by Sazerac: Hear, hear, Dio! (applauds) "A last resort." Yes, like a surgery. In one's health, one always looks for alternative forms of treatment rather than submit oneself to the radical treatment of surgery. Sometimes, though, it is a necessary evil, and sometimes good tissue has to be wounded to get to the bad tissue. It is the same way with war. One hopes and prays that it doesn't come, and one tries to find as many possible solutions to come to an agreement without it. But if all else has failed, then if it must be, it must be. Let it be quick, and decisive, and may as much "good" be spared in getting rid of the "bad."

But how many people have died trying alternative treatments rather than going for a 'good' chance with surgery? I know you should weigh your alternatives, but in some cases this needs to be done with expediency, time is a factor.

A military strike may not be 100% certain to attain the goals. But from what I have seen, the US did weigh (and even tried) the alternatives with no results. We gave the Taliban ample time to detain bin Laden. We didn't even expect them to hand him over until evidence was submitted, we just wanted him captured and detained (just as we do with any other 'potential' criminal). The Taliban knew that if they did not meet our stated requests then they would face military action. We did not 'sneak' attack like the terrorists did. We gave ample time for an alternative, when this did not work, we launched a military offensive.

And remember too, we did not (and I don't beleive we have ever) called this a war. It is the Taliban and bin Laden who have announced this as a war. Sure our media is using the term war, but the official stance of the US Government is not that of a war!

------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Garnet: Yorick, I did not disregard your comments of the girl who had been tortured and raped. I did not disregard the comment on your co-worker. All I asked you to do was to back up and ask yourself if you knew *all* there was to know about this particular religion so that you could make such definitive statements as absolute truth. We all carry biases which are radically affected by experiences of our own or those about us which have touched our lives in a meaningful way. In no way did I suggest that these experiences you speak of were inconsequestial. I would say, however, based on the information gleaned from my own reading of texts, etc. and interviews of joe blows who purport to call satanism their 'religion' that these others are the exception rather than the rule. Yes, if this be the case, it would be reasonable to assume that they would indeed change the name of their religion rather than be grouped with the evil-doers. Yet they obviously do not feel the need to. That is their choice, lamentable though it may be in general (for the understanding if there are indeed gross misrepresentations of their beliefs). However, the Catholic Church did not change their name in light of the atrocities of the Inquisition which were far wider spread. I also decry evil and do whatever is in my power to counteract it in any small way. But I also know that when we are hurting inside and angry at a world which is too harsh and seemingly uncaring of our pain, it is difficult to differentiate between the hand out to help and the hand out to press down. My hand is out --to help. I have no initials behind my name denoting myself as qualified to treat the human mind. All I have is human compassion. If I have offended you in my posts, I apologize as this was not my intention. Instead I meant to do as I stated above. It is often far easier to see the trees and lose sight of the forest. Garnet

Garnet, with all respect I don't believe you're in any position to contradict my observations. It would be suicidal to admit to illegal practices in "interviews". The accounts I read were from ex-Satanists, one of whom was the head of the movement in Britain. This is a compelling account as worthy of respect as much as Herodotus or any other historical/biographical account. The eyewitness experiences of rape victim is also compelling. Alone either of these would be cause for worry. There's no smoke without a fire....

The realty Protestants are removed from the Crusades and the Inquisition. Catholics must deal with their guilt on both those issues, and are addressing them. The Pope recently apologised for both occurances.
If these Satanist aquaintances of yours are not aligned to the same believes as the one I mentioned, yet still don't feel the need to create a further distiction in ideological identification, then one would be withins ones rights to cast dispersions on them also. Usually where an ideology varies significantly a distiction is used. I mention Sufism and Wahabism. There is also Theravada and Lamaist Buddhism. Tantric Buddhists have practices amost opposite to Buddhas teachings on avoiding desire (dive right in to remove the desire) and have occult practices, hence the distinction.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[250]

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: "US fighter, this is Taliban Anti Aircraft position Baker One. Could you please lower you flight altitude to 1000 feet? Our guns cant reach much higher than that"

US fighter: "Rogue that! yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeha!"

I know alot of satanists, They adhere to a philosophy of personal responability, and an ethic that prohits harm to another except in self-defense.

It is a shame that a minority would use a label, commit horrific acts, and the consequences are the real followers carry the burden of false persecpition. They dont believe in the devil, dont commit evil as a ritual act, but as human individuals, i am sure some have failings.
Some christians have done horrible things, molested children, bombed doctors, ect. I dont advocate all other christians change their label of their belief system because of the actions of a few who do.


I'm done talking about this. I cant change anyones limited concepts, I can only express what I know, myself. If someone isnt open-minded enough to change their concepts in light of new information, nothing I can do.

[250]

Originally posted by G'kar: I know alot of satanists, They adhere to a philosophy of personal responability, and an ethic that prohits harm to another except in self-defense. It is a shame that a minority would use a label, commit horrific acts, and the consequences are the real followers carry the burden of false persecpition. They dont believe in the devil, dont commit evil as a ritual act, but as human individuals, i am sure some have failings. Some christians have done horrible things, molested children, bombed doctors, ect. I dont advocate all other christians change their label of their belief system because of the actions of a few who do. I'm done talking about this. I cant change anyones limited concepts, I can only express what I know, myself. If someone isnt open-minded enough to change their concepts in light of new information, nothing I can do.

I am willing to know, what does the true Satanist believe? what is their view on the world and relationship with others? what do they practice? what are their deities?

interesting to know...