Macabre

Why pick on

Why pick on the sergeant-major? I have several friends who are sergeant-majors and great guys.

 

Re: Why pick on

You are wrong.

Sergeant-majors have no friends and their parents were just passing aquaintances.

 

My dear Chris: Because it alliterates, that's why. At your service, Janko

 

Sad

Methinks the SGM's and CSM's of the world are feeling no love.

 

I myself was shocked to read such a dumb, rather insensitive, careless remark about something you seem to completely ignore, contrasting with some of your previous friendly, thoughtful, and sensible comments. Firstly, I found little edifying that you insinuate that Zapatero have the same fate as preceding Hamas leaders, and I expressed it as civilized as possible. How many clergymen take such a radical stance on politics at a time when world religious leaders moderately preach on tolerance and peace to avoid a clash of civilizations? Your second (nihilist) message, full of vulgarity and slurs, which are impossible to reconcile with a moral authority of any type, did unfortunately serve as a confirmation to my initial suspicions.

Pim Fortuyn was a xenophobic nazi who was assassinated by another ultra about two years ago. He was despised by politicians, academics, and intellectuals alike across the continent. Is this is your type of politician or you see him as a sort of a Messiah? Didn’t you know he had numerous Arab male lovers? As an “expert” in European politics, would you think his racist political position was based on some undiagnosed psychological affliction caused by a destructive gay experience? In any case, a very generous analysis of his political ethos could characterize him to be, at the very least, a populist. So was Hitler. Did Pim Fortuyn die for my sins? You gotta be kidding me.

How can you type with your straight jacket on?

Peace, Janko.



PS BTW, syphilis, aids, McDonald's… former and current empires seem to export the worst of themselves to others. I humbly recommend an extraordinary book called ”Guns, Germs and Steele”, a short history of our last 13,000 years. A masterpiece. Gives you sort of perspective.

 

"You are wrong.

Sergeant-majors have no friends and their parents were just passing aquaintances."


True, even for non army types of equivalent rank. (as opposed to rancor, but equally fitting, 2ndLTs made us that way...)


"Methinks the SGM's and CSM's of the world are feeling no love."

We don't need no stinking love.....

 

My, we don't tolerate cultural insubordination very well, do we?

Zapatilla has sided against the West. He has dishonoured Spain. He is a coward and a cheat.

Know how you can tell that biscotti come from Italy and not from Spain? They're shaped like...but they're not limp.

Radical stance? Thinking appeasers are scum? Oh, good. I'm glad to find out I'm a radical. I never knew that. Somewhere, Clemenceau is smiling.

So because Dr Fortuyn found antisemitism objectionable and the civil life of western democracy indispensable, he was a "xenophobic nazi"? Interesting. Did I approve of his personal life? No. But his murder showed the link between the eurotrash left and islamo-fascism. I don't quite know what your remarks about homosexuals show; I'm not sure I want to know.

You implied that as a "priest" (sic) I had no right to speak. I do and I will. Then you said I wanted Sapadildo to end up like Yassin. I didn't. He (sic) has chosen the side of Hamas, and maybe could help 'em out since they're understaffed at the moment. Otherwise, there's no comparison. Vicious bastard that Yassin was, he at least had the guts to stay the monstrous course he had set. Not Zapatero. He couldn't even stay the weekend.

 

Fortuyn was nothing but an ultra right-winger; a reactionary like LePen, Haider or yourself. He wanted, among other “inspiring” ideas, to expulse all non EU emigrants from Holland; an idea that was shared by the most disfavored strata of the Dutch society, and that in the thirties cost us a war. My reference to his homosexuality was an attempt to show his contradictory and cynical views on Arabs and Muslims. He deplored them publicly (and got cheered for it by most trashy, uneducated losers of Holland and the rest of Europe – you’d be surprised to know that most of those who voted for him had previously voted to Leftists parties) but at the same time he was having romantic affairs with some of them. That was Dr. Fortuyn who liked to call himself Professor Fortuyn illegally since he was expelled from the University of Rotterdam (Erasmus) since he didn’t produce any original work. He was truly charismatic and appealed to the most uneducated sectors of Dutch people who shared slums with Islamic emigrants.

You analysis is once again too simplistic. I don’t deny there is a tacit, strategic relationship between Islam and European ultra left-wingers (intellectuals, academics, artists, etc,…not as trashy as you labeled them), as they both have the same abstract objective: to demolish Capitalism. But if what you represent is the alternative to this, boy, then this is the end. In addition, Zapatero hasn’t sided against the West. In fact, there are many other Western nations that don’t share Bush’s views on how to fight Islamic terrorism. France, Canada and Germany among many others. And Bush may not even be there in half a year. I censure Zapatero’s stance on Iraq. It is embarrassing, I am angry about it, I’d like to slap him, the way he won those elections is at the very least dubious, and I will never vote for Zapatero or any other social democrat. If you look above in this specific debate, you’ll see that I referred to him in very harsh terms. Furthermore all Spanish newspaper but one, El Pais, strongly criticize this dunce’s uproarious behavior. The new government has spent the last 4 days trying to explain everywhere a decision that most people don’t understand. But to wish his death is something else or to compare him in any possible way with Hamas, an Israeli creation is way out of proportion. An exaggeration. And Bush has it very easy to get him back really hard. And I hope he chooses to do so.

Spain has EXCELLENT relations with the US from Eisenhower and Marshall times to four days ago. Thousands of Americans live happily in Spain, completely integrated there, and feeling at home. There are couple of joint military bases, some of them so strategic like the one controlling the Gibraltar Strait. I myself I have participated in military maneuvres with American soldiers in the Pyrinees as part of NATO training back when I was in the Army. When this individual leaves office, things will quickly return to normality. His abnormal, unprecedented behavior is due to the fact he doesn’t have absolute majority in Parliament and he owes his position to ultra left wingers and separatists who demanded this outrageous action from him. That’s all. Nothing to do with those things you unfairly accuse him off.

 

I almost forgot. No, priest, I didn’t say that you shouldn’t speak your mind, I just objected to your insensitivity. Last night I kind of expected (in vain) you behaved as what you claim to be, not like a fundamentalist. All priests I have met before had some type of halo around them, independently of their religious beliefs; something intangible that made them be above other humans for their spiritual qualities, a serenity in their manners, in their speech. I don’t know, but one feels something when in their presence.

I am shocked to read your vocabulary, your rudeness, your way of expressing your political ideology. I honestly can’t believe you. I never suspected a cleric could talk like you do. You’re intellectually close to Friar Tuck, the cleric of Robin Hood, a nominal priest, aren’t you something like that? Just kidding. I guess priests like everybody else behave and talk differently at work than at home, and they separate work from pleasure. Didn't Pharisees did that too?

By the way, are you serious when you affirm you never knew you were a radical? Boy, this is a hilarious one! How do you perceive yourself? A cool, moderate, open, sympathetic to diversity type of guy? Man, you are so intransigent, unless your words here are just an act.

Cordial greetings

 

Although a newbie to the boards, I can't help myself when it comes to this subject.

To simplify things ....

(1) Spain joins the US led and dominated coalition in Iraq against the express wishes of her people

(2) Spain experiences a bombing that elicits the same feelings of anger and fear that were prevalent in the US after 9/11

(3) Instead of turning that anger against the terrorists, the Spanish people turned that anger against a government they blamed for getting them attacked in the first place - in my opinion, this was mob mentality at its worst

(4) The new Spanish government upon taking office chooses not to lead, but to bow to the terrorists' will by removing Spanish soldiers from Iraq post-haste - now mob mentality has been replaced with a government unwilling or unable to see the long-term consequences to the "civilized" world by their actions

The spanish government, and by extension, the spanish people who voted in that government, will be responsible for far more deaths than would otherwise have occured because of this short-sighted action. Additionally, our own government here in the US has failed to live up to its promise of attacking terrorists and their organizations whereever they abide, and to treat the states that sponsor terrorism the same as the terrorists themselves.

What actions are we taking against Syria? A blatantly terrorist state sponsor if there ever was one.

What about Saudia Arabia? The government there is supposedly "friendly" to our government, but the royal family itself is known to give money to organizations that funnel money to terrorism.

North Korea? A nuclear nation, albeit an undeclared one, that has proven repeatedly that they are willing to sell arms to whomever has a fat enough wallet.

And the list could go on.

Terrorism is not a US problem. It really isn't even a western problem. It is a world problem where, in essence, one relatively small group of fanatics want to impose their own form of thought on their region, and to an extent, the rest of the world. That is fascism in islamic clothing.

And as some of you have already pointed out, this comes primarily from an area of the world that diplomacy is seen as a sign of weakness. Numerous articles have already been written regarding the lack of respect for human suffering and human life in Iraq. The citizens there are simply immune to it, having grown up in a violent, cruel society. Do you think Palestinians are any different? What about the "street" as it is referred to in Saudia Arabia? Syria?

Simply put, the only method of "diplomacy" that is respected in the middle east is the diplomacy that comes at the tip of a sword. And we, by and large, are unwilling to use our sword to its full extent.

Sure, anger us enough, give us a good enough reason, and we (meaning the US) will come after you with our teeth and weapons bared. But, as we are already seeing, let it drag out for a bit and let us get back to our comfortable routines and for the most part, our mob mentality causes us to begin to put pressure on our politicians to garner us peace.

Sometimes peace only comes after you have beaten your enemy so soundly, destroyed him so completely, humiliated and demoralized him so totally, that he changes his complete outlook on warfare.

We as a country are no longer willing to fight the war that our fathers and grandfathers fought where civilians who resisted you were treated as combatants and where those of your own number who worked against you were treated as traitors.

 

Thorsen,

Welcome to this Off Topic section.

I agree with your previous comment to a great extent. Recognizing that international terrorism is a problem that afflicts the civilized world, and having identified some of its causes as accurate as you did is in my opinion an important step although it is so unfortunate that the world cannot even agree on this. You have also shown some of the inconsistencies of Bush policies on terrorism (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Korea, etc,…). Is that your opinion on the way to go? To level those regions to the ground like a majority of people here seem to support? Where would you find the enemy that aware of US military supremacy refuses to directly engage???? Current American government efforts are direct towards implementing an old American dream: to spread democracy in the Middle East through the Greater Middle East Project to impulse governments to become democratic, and this less having less propensity to Islamic adventures. This will work in the long run. A first step for it was to secure Turkey’s secular democracy accession conversations with the EU for full membership, as a bridge country between both civilizations, and to foment paths to “adapt” Islam to current times (no offense meant to Islamic posters, if any). In my humble opinion this is the way to go, combined with restricted military action when absolutely necessary like Afghanistan. It is as well very important to consolidate an international alliance. Terrorists seem to take advantage from these internal divisions, and it is important that the UN or any other organ leads this fight. This is not the type of enmy one country can fight alone even if it is as powerful as the US. I know it is a utopia, because each country has a web of interests that often intersects those of the anti terrorism fight, and conflict with each other. We see it on a daily basis. But I think that would be the most effective way to go: A combination of actions by a large number of allies, and collective, agreed action.

 

Re: Re: Let's launch a new crusade!

After the school bus bombing the other day, it seems like the Islamo-facists are doing a fine job of killing their own children. I don't think they need our assistance in that regard.

 

Hi Bill: You know, you're really a nice person. So I'm going to apologize for getting so pissed off about Zeroperro. After all, appeasers and collaborators are nothing new. Thus: I'm thorry.

For the record: I think Dr Fortuyn was a great man. Not a good man, but culturally wise and a defender of western pluralism against those who exploit openness in order to destroy it. It simply shows how topsy-turvy things have become, that such a person should be labeled a nazi for objecting to the civic brutishness and egregious sexism of the fascist political Islam imported into the Netherlands because of a humane "asylum" policy's being abused by haters of the West.

Your post got me thinking. You mention the politically engaged character of some American clergy. True enough. Oddly, though, I'm not. But I never have subscribed to the cheap transmogrification of the Soviet notion of democratic centralism, whereby election results are invested with infallibility and imperviousness to criticism, and when someone hollers "hey priest" and expects me to shut up, I will, duty bound, bellow.

Also, since we're talking about the Netherlands, if obliquely, here are some "priests" (sic) who might also exemplify what you're talking about: Groen van Prinsterer, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd, R. M. Kuitert, or even Jochem Douma.

One might conclude by applying the words of John L. Lewis, mutatis mutandis, to the Dutch tradition of politically engaged clergy (like Kuyper) and politically engaged academics (like Fortuyn), and, more broadly, the Dutch tradition of resistance to totalitarian ideologies brought in from abroad:
"Labour, like Israel, has many sorrows. Her women weep for their fallen, and lament upon the future of the children of the race. It ill behooves one who has supped at labour's table, and who has been sheltered in labour's house, to curse with equal fervour and fine impartiality, both labour and her adversaries, when they become locked in deadly embrace."

At your service, Janko

 

Hi Bill, yes, I am aware there are Christians heavily involved in politics. Here, too. This is a very slippery terrain, and I’ll be as cautious as I can. My comment had more to do with institutionalized church than with personal comments on politics proffered by a Christian like (I assumed) Janko is. Let’ recapitulate a little bit to put things in context. Let’s remember that Janko was hinting that Zapatero, a legitimate foreign political leader, should face a similar fate as those Hamas leaders assassinated by Israeli forces. To me it was shocking to see an ordained man descending at that level, and I tried to express that distress in what I thought would be a more familiar way for him, illustrating it with some verses I remembered from my youth that in my view were absolutely appropriate to this case. What was the source of his authority to make such comments? Dis it emanate from his god (by revelation, for instance) or from his very earthly, human perception of the world and its social affairs? In different words, is he using his religious leadership to express a personal view or is he just expressing his god’s view on these affairs we are discussing? You might remember I quoted last week Joan of Arc saying something like “those who fight the Kingdom of France are also fighting again the Kingdom of Christ”. This absurdity reflects quite well how I felt when I read that comment by Janko. In who’s name was she (Joan) or he (Janko) really talking? I think those verses I brought here suggest, in my personal interpretation (as valid as any other), that Christian leaders should stick to more celestial affairs which is wha ttruly matters among other reasons not to confuse the audience on to who the message is from and to avoid thus controversy. Some authors and analysts have considered those words to reflect the truly secular ideal of Christianism, that government should be directed away from religious considerations. I truly hope I made my point this time convincingly.

I responded to your request out of courtesy towards your exquisitely polite and well-reasoned message, but I do not wish to engage in a theological discussion. I am agnostic, and (wit hall due respect) I don’t really care about the Bible or Qur’an or any other religious publication. Of course, I will respect your right to respond but I would request you not to enter into this type of discussion I don’t think I can be at your level.

One more suggestion. If you find some time for retirement, I humbly suggest this destination http://www.silos.arrakis.es/. This is where gregorian chants are still sung as 1500 years ago and the scenario is simply … celestial.

Cordial greetings

 

No, you silly person, I was not hinting that the idiot should be assassinated. This is a typical rhetorical tactic. I state flatly that the idiot has sided with terrorism to the dishonour of himself and his country. I was hinting that maybe, now that Hamas is shorthanded, the idiot could help them out around the office, say, with filing, going out for coffee and donuts, cleaning toilets--minor, subordinate, unmanly, simple tasks, suitable for a low-grade quisling of his (sic) calibre. And while I'm all for the Israelis sending a separate part of Hamas leaders to each of the heavenly virgins, the idiot hardly qualifies as a leader. The man (sic) running fastest in a rout is not a leader; he (sic) is just in front, until faster cowards trample him.

At your service, Janko

 

===

JLV

Thankyou for your response.

Knowing my own political ignorance , and not wishing to embarass myself, you see, by mouthing off about things I really don't understand, I dared post to you only because you chose to argue points using the Christian Scriptures. I supposed, you see, that if you opted to do such, you had more understanding related to that choice than just the ability to cite verses learned as a child. But that's fine ; I'll just watch you and my favorite Unk tear at each others' throats.

Thanks again,

 

Well, Bill, I truly did my best to justify the use of those Biblical references. I have not reviewed all possible exegesis (spelling?) but I am sure the one I brought up here (separation between government and religious affairs) is just one of them. I think I could provide references that seem to support this idea if interested. In any case, be ABSOLUTELY sure I just didn't recite those verses, I did it with a rethoric intention that, you see, escaped unnoticed to many.


Greetings

 

JLV,

while I've enjoyed the discussion in this thread you mentioned the separation of religion and government affairs. Perhaps you could elaborate on the information below regarding the Netherlands and her political parties and how a party with "Christian" in the name is able to make this separation.

Political parties and leaders:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html#Intro

Christian Democratic Appeal or CDA [Maxime Jacques Marcel VERHAGEN]; Christian Union Party [Andre ROUVOET]; Democrats 66 or D66 [Boris DITTRICH]; Green Party [Femke HALSEMA]; Labor Party or PvdA [Wouter BOS]; List Pim Fortuyn [Mat HERBEN]; People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (Liberal) or VVD [Gerrit ZALM]; Socialist Party [Jan MARIJNISSEN]; a host of minor parties