Grizzle

Soback, I assure you this is not made up and it is the only experience I had such as it was and I am not prone to this sort of thing. I've even mentioned it to my siblings in years past, who remember it vividly as well since I talked and talked about it for such a long time afterwards. Besides, I was contributing to the topic at hand one of my own experiences and I don't care whether anyone else believes it or not. All I can say is you weren't there.

At the age of seven my family and I were vacationing in Ocean City Maryland. My brother and I were sharing a bed, my two sisters in one of their own and my parents were sleeping in a section of the room that had a small divider between it and our beds. My bed and my position in it, was closest to the main door that led outside. I was having one of those half-waking dreams and saw our family dog, whom was left home and was not with us, walking from the front door into the living area. I felt something jump on the end of the bed where my feet were. In my half dream state I thought it was our dog that had jumped on the bed. I remember distinctly the bounce and feel of the covers being stretched taught over the lower portion of the bed and felt the weight of whatever it was sitting there, there is no mistaking this and I remember it vividly to this day. I could sense that something was watching me. Suddenly something slapped me in the face with enough force that caused my head to turn to the right. It wasn't a hard slap, but I remember the hand that did it felt hairy, or fuzzy and left a tingling sensation on my cheek. My head rolled back to the left and I opened my eyes. My brother was sleeping soundly next to me with his back turned towards me. As I turned my head to the right to see what was there and what had literally knocked me out of my slumber, I saw two glowing red eyes staring at me from the foot of the bed. Needless to say I nearly shit myself as I threw the covers over my head and screamed bloody murder. Of course I woke everyone up and nothing was found in the room, but it took a long time to calm me down enough to sleep again. I've thought often enough about it over the years to realize it was more than childish imagination. The real world effects I felt cannot be mistaken. What it was I don't know and probably never will. But I'll never forget it, that's for sure.

The problem I have with this is that France would have been taking a big chance by providing evidence to support a war they did not want us to fight. It might seem a bit more conceivable if after the US and Britain accepted the evidence, France had come out and showed how bogus it was. They didn't as far as I know. They pretty much said they don't support the war, period. Why would they go through all the trouble of manufacturing the document and never raise doubts about it before we went to war? Kind of self-defeating. You'd have to believe their intent was to make us look like fools after the fact, which negates the whole concept of using the information to discredit the war and prevent it from happening in order to protect their interests. Besides, one would hope that in matters of such importance, our intelligence community would have done all in their power to validate the information. Surely we knew of Frances ties with Saddam well before we decided to go to Iraq, and that alone should have cast doubts on any information they provided. In any event maybe France did do this, but we fell for it and two wrongs don't make a right.

quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

Jaguar, yes of course the spread of democracy will minimize terrorism. Do you think the method of spreading it will have an effect on whether it's successful or not? Where do we go next? When do we stop? At what point does it become imperialism? I'm a bit uncomfortable about the shifting rationale given for invading Iraq, we seem to have settled on the idea of spreading democracy, but that's not the way it started out. Steve, I've always respected the way you present your point of view even though I rarely agree with you. I think your point is fairly obvious, but since we all know that terrorism is an ideal, is it really possible to squash it? I'm afraid we'll always be fighting the battle but never win the war. Mr. Bush has said the same, and he was right. To me it's not much different than the "War on Drugs" and by that I mean inherently non-winnable (what is it about republicans and these nebulous, loosely defined 'Wars'?) Kal, We've all heard that one before, but it was 8 years between the first attack on the WTC and 9/11. Three years doesn't indicate much of anything. Though I'm sure our efforts since then have met with some success in preventing further attacks, we just aren't out of the woods yet.

If Jag's argument is that you should never negotiate with terrorists, and when they act so must we, I think that's a given. However, this line of thinking is short-sighted and does not address the problem. Do any of you actually believe beating them down is going to stop them? They thrive on oppression and violence and we are all to eager to feed them. My responses have been an attempt at perspective and the idea that there are more effective long term solutions to the problem. Since 9/11 the country has been whipped into a frenzy of irrational fear about the effect terrorism really has on our lives. I just find it difficult to get all wound up over terrorism when statistical facts show that it is a terribly insignificant threat to our survival. 42,000 people die each year in the US from automobile accidents. Over 60,000 people die each year in the US from medical mistakes. HIV claims 688,000 people worldwide each year 1.7 million people in the US are victims of homicide each year 24,000 people a day die from starvation, 3/4's of which are children. Where's the righteous indignation about those innocent deaths? Now for some perspective on Terrorism: Since 9/11 there have been 2,929 deaths attributed to terrorism. Of those 1,709 have occured in 2004 (hmmm..seems to be getting worse!) In 2003 625 killed, 3646 wounded. 1.5% were Americans. Terrorism is a bad thing, but hardly the mortal threat to our lives as some would have you believe. The outcry against it can't simply be due to the deaths of innocents, it must be something about the methodology. Otherwise I'd expect us to start a "War on Hunger". The fear that we will be overrun by Islamic radicals and lose our freedom is about as rational as fearing the bogeyman. Just be sure ya'll check under your beds at night.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Grizzle, get a grip, these terrorists want ONE thing, and one thing only. Worldwide domination of Islam.Me?..a grip? Grip this... Exactly how many Islamic terrorists are out there? 5, 10, 20 thousand maybe? Do you honestly think they have a shot in hell of subverting the world against hundreds of millions of other peace loving citizens? Terrorism at best, is an ugly wart on the ass of humanity. It's not their numbers that frighten so many, it's their callous nature. quote: Let Chechnya go so that we can turn it into an islamic state, let Iraq go, so that we can turn it into an Islamic state, let Palestine go and let us turn it into an islamic state.Grip #2 Oh I see, so you are saying anyone who is Islamic is a terrorist. That the whole of the Muslim faith wants to destroy everyone else. Uh huh. (Spare me the "it's in the Quoran" line because there's lots of things in the Bible that modern Christians don't practice or believe in.) quote: Destroy the US so that we can unhindered take over a create an Islamic superstate, that will destroy the infidels.I think there's a typo in there, you meant 'they' instead of 'we' right? Grip #3 Again, like they have a chance in hell to do anything more than disrupt us and the rest of the world for more than a short while. I guarantee there are more people living in your home town than there are blood thirsty terrorists ready and capable to strip you of your life. quote: THAT is the motivation, and NO amount of garbage pickup is gonna fix that, except the deaths of those people that us terrorism, and the destruction of muslim exremists that preach the hatred, and the democratization of those middle East countries.Grip#4 While some may be purely motivated by hatred and the desire to kill, others are in it for the notoriety. They gauge their effectiveness, not by how many people they kill, but by how much news they create. quote: NO islamic super state can come about if those countries are Democratic, the people will NOT put up with it.Grip#5 What's wrong with an Islamic super state?. Oh that's right every single Muslim is a blood thirsty terrorist. quote: Bush is NOT the simpleton that you guys think he is, he knows EXACTLY what their motivation is, and how to put a monkey wrench in their works. He knows EXACTLY what he is doing, and it is working and will continue to work. Grip#5 I don't know, the human race has been fighting terrorism since the dawn of civilization, yet they're still here. I sure hope George has a Really Big Monkey Wrench if he is to succeed where others, throughout history, have failed. My last Grip. I guess if you truly believe that terrorists are born from the womb hating the world and wanting to kill, then your stance would make sense. However a more rational explanation is that terrorism is learned and fostered through their experiences and inability to achieve the things they desire in life. Address those issues and you have a much better chance of eliminating the desire for them to become terrorists in the first place. I'm all gripped out.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: The economy is NOT sluggish, the unemployment rate is lower then it has been in years, and the economy is taking off. The unemployment rate is and always has been ficticious. It only counts those receiving unemployment benefits. I was technically unemployed for the last year, but I did not collect benefits so I was never counted in that figure. You do know that when benefits expire for people they go off the roles and the unemployment figure goes down. Many of those same people still do not have jobs. quote: Dean was a NUT, and if he had become the candidate, he would be trailing in the polls even worse then Kerry is right now.Maybe, but he would certainly not be afraid to raise the hair on his back and stir some crap up. quote: Poor Grizzle, what a disapointment this must be for you.A. I'm not poor in any sense of the word, thank you. B. I'm not disappointed C. Kerry was never my choice quote: Political suicide, the Democrat party is committing Hiry kiry before our very eyes, and I am LOVING it. Glad you enjoy it so. Even I don't take such glee in the idea of GW losing the presidency. I don't like his policies, but have nothing against the man. And I'm more interested in what's best for our country versus which party will do those things. I just happen to think that the current administration is setting us back not moving us forward.

Jag, there is a difference between resorting to violence when it is necessary and believing it is the only solution. Of course I would defend myself and my own, but that wouldn't cause me to abandon my beliefs. Soback, yes he paid the ultimate price, but look at how he reshaped the world, with nothing but words and ideas. Was it worth it?

Jag, there is a difference between resorting to violence when it is necessary and believing it is the only solution. Of course I would defend myself and my own, but that wouldn't cause me to abandon my beliefs. Soback, yes he paid the ultimate price, but look at how he reshaped the world, with nothing but words and ideas. Was it worth it?

quote:Originally posted by Soback: Funny how when it all goes down you don't see street or any of the liberals posting, just like that article said, when our soldiers kill a terrorist with a bomb and a gun they scream that you are killing a freedom fighter, but when a terrorist kills hundreds of civillians and children they are all quiet. Makes you wonder a lot of things.... So street, go ahead, what have you to say now? Maybe you can tell us again about your military career and if you were actually in the US army for the US army or in the US army making sure they don't harm any freedom fighters as you like calling them. Street is not the first person to have served in the military and fought in a war to come out of it realizing how pointless and tragic it really is. Let the man have his opinion. Perhaps there are people that see killing *of any kind* as a terrible tragedy. Perhaps those same people live in a society that places itself above the barbarism exhibited by terrorists. Perhaps because of that fact they feel that responding in kind is the low road, not the high road. Perhaps they realize the futility of fighting this sort of behavior. Terrorists are like cockroaches, you can hire an exterminator to wipe them out in one fell swoop, but if you don't clean up the garbage that attracts them they'll be back and in greater numbers than before.

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. I watched both conventions and I do think the RNC was much more effective and enthusiastic, but once the warm fuzzy feelings wear off, more of our soldiers die and the economy continues to move sluggishly those sentiments might change. After seeing some of the vitriolic attacks launched by the RNC on "attack night", I'm really wishing Howard Dean was the democratic candidate. He might have been a crazy loon, but he managed to incite a hell of a lot more people than Kerry has. My advice to Senator Kerry... go to the nearest sporting goods store and buy yourself some balls. It's time for the gloves to come off. Oh, and why the hell didn't we hear a single mention of Osama Bin Laden during all that chest beating at the RNC?

quote:Originally posted by Kalshion: And you why right Grizzle? The protestors are IGNORING the officers They where warned BEFORE the event that if they got out of hand they'd be arrested Then some group tell's them NOT to listen to the officers Some of those so called 'protestors' already attacked a police officer, in which case the assaylents where thrown in prison So, I hardly call them patriotic if there willing to ATTACK another american The labeling and name calling occured even before the protests were underway. It was not a response to the actions of the protestors. It was a pre-emptive attempt to marginalize those that want to excercise the freedoms guaranteed in our constitution. As for dealing with terrorism, you can never destroy all terrorists, ever. Terrorism is an idealogy and as we've now seen it termed, a 'tactic'. While the unquestionable slaughter of a group of terrorists may seem to solve the immediate problem it will likely do nothing more than spawn more terrorists. Let's not forget, most terrorists are not afraid to die. We could spend the next several decades or centuries responding to their violence with violence of our own, but in between those times wouldn't it be prudent to work on solving the problems and circumstances that cause and breed terrorism? We may never eliminate it, but at the very least we can minimize it.

As things stand today, I agree. And I agree that violence and war are ingrained into the psyche of man, but there are an awful lot of people in this world who can and do rise above violence as a means to resolve conflict. I am one of them. I used Jesus as an example in a historical context because many credit him with changing the world and the way people treat one another. There have been many others too, otherwise we'd still be living in caves and beating each other with sticks. My point is that you have to start somewhere and though it's easy to dismiss these ideas as nothing more than sunshine and roses, it IS possible to reshape civil and social paradigms. Until then we still need our men in uniform and they deserve every ounce of respect we can give them, but lets not cast the idea of peace aside as something utterly unattainable. If we do then it surely will never come to pass.

As things stand today, I agree. And I agree that violence and war are ingrained into the psyche of man, but there are an awful lot of people in this world who can and do rise above violence as a means to resolve conflict. I am one of them. I used Jesus as an example in a historical context because many credit him with changing the world and the way people treat one another. There have been many others too, otherwise we'd still be living in caves and beating each other with sticks. My point is that you have to start somewhere and though it's easy to dismiss these ideas as nothing more than sunshine and roses, it IS possible to reshape civil and social paradigms. Until then we still need our men in uniform and they deserve every ounce of respect we can give them, but lets not cast the idea of peace aside as something utterly unattainable. If we do then it surely will never come to pass.

quote:Originally posted by DeepFreeze: quote:Each time we see a man in uniform, a deep sense of defeat and shame should overcome us.This statement makes me ill. It makes me want to murder the man who wrote that. I don't believe any man who sits around spouting off garbage for a living has any right to say a damn thing about the men and women who are dying for him. If people are getting on planes to the ******* of the world and facing imminent death to protect John Morris, some punk-ass kid living comfortably in his suburban home in New Jersey that they don't even know, I am eternally grateful; and I'll be damned before I say a bad word about them. I think most of you take this far too literally. On a philosophical level he is 110% correct. Rather than interpret the idea of hanging our heads in shame when we see a man in uniform as a material act, think of it as a moment to reflect on what war means and why it occurs and what we can do to prevent it. Religion and histories greatest philosophers have always challenged the status quo and asked man to rise above himself to a better place. Jesus was crucified for threatening the establishment and shaking the tree. I don't recall him saying we should exhalt violence and war. Who could possibly disagree with his sentiments about what it means and what is required to be a human being? The words and ideas Mr. Scofield puts forth may be disturbing and callous, but don't concentrate so much on the words and the scenario, instead think about what he's saying between the lines. It's hardly a ground breaking ideal. The simple fact of the matter is, if we did what he suggests, we'd that be much farther along the path to abolishing war. If you don't believe it's possible or even right, that's okay because someone out there does. And as history has shown, sometimes that's all it takes. A civilization that cannot produce people who are willing and able to challenge the current paradigm is doomed to extinction.

quote:Originally posted by DeepFreeze: quote:Each time we see a man in uniform, a deep sense of defeat and shame should overcome us.This statement makes me ill. It makes me want to murder the man who wrote that. I don't believe any man who sits around spouting off garbage for a living has any right to say a damn thing about the men and women who are dying for him. If people are getting on planes to the ******* of the world and facing imminent death to protect John Morris, some punk-ass kid living comfortably in his suburban home in New Jersey that they don't even know, I am eternally grateful; and I'll be damned before I say a bad word about them. I think most of you take this far too literally. On a philosophical level he is 110% correct. Rather than interpret the idea of hanging our heads in shame when we see a man in uniform as a material act, think of it as a moment to reflect on what war means and why it occurs and what we can do to prevent it. Religion and histories greatest philosophers have always challenged the status quo and asked man to rise above himself to a better place. Jesus was crucified for threatening the establishment and shaking the tree. I don't recall him saying we should exhalt violence and war. Who could possibly disagree with his sentiments about what it means and what is required to be a human being? The words and ideas Mr. Scofield puts forth may be disturbing and callous, but don't concentrate so much on the words and the scenario, instead think about what he's saying between the lines. It's hardly a ground breaking ideal. The simple fact of the matter is, if we did what he suggests, we'd that be much farther along the path to abolishing war. If you don't believe it's possible or even right, that's okay because someone out there does. And as history has shown, sometimes that's all it takes. A civilization that cannot produce people who are willing and able to challenge the current paradigm is doomed to extinction.

Not to mention that most recently, protestors at the RNC have been referred to as Communists, Socialists, Terrorists, Un-Patriotic.. the list goes on. How can we expect to have effective protests if half the population considers those that participate, criminals, when in fact dissent, protest and freedom to assemble etc.. are important aspects of a democracy?

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: He gets what he gives, he started the nonsense, and I will give it right back, as a moderator, I do not have to sit back and take abuse. I have every right to give as I get, as long as I do not cuss, or otherwise threaten the idiots in any way. I have not cussed, I have not threatened, I have pushed the envelope, but I do not and will not turn the other cheek. As far as I'm concerned cussing or using questionable language takes a back seat to outright personal attacks. And I believe calling street an idiot falls under that umbrella. Whether you realize it or not, your rebuttals drip with condescension and tend to completely dismiss any statements or opinions that aren't 100% in agreement with your own. Your methods are thinly veiled passive-agressive attacks. Just look at your quote above... "I have every right to give as I get, as long as I do not cuss, or otherwise threaten the idiots in any way." The tone of that sentence can be altered dramatically by changing "the idiots" to "them". Simple. Surely you must realize the affect this has. Rather than diffuse the situation, your responses inflame them. Simply stating "I don't agree with your opinion" is a sufficient way to end discourse. No need to resort to personal attacks. To do so, only shows that one has nothing left to counter with. When that happens it's best just to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Again, sorry to use you as an example, but as one of the more opinionated and boisterous posters here (and a moderator to boot) you have a large influence on the tone and method of discourse that occurs in this forum.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: He gets what he gives, he started the nonsense, and I will give it right back, as a moderator, I do not have to sit back and take abuse. I have every right to give as I get, as long as I do not cuss, or otherwise threaten the idiots in any way. I have not cussed, I have not threatened, I have pushed the envelope, but I do not and will not turn the other cheek. As far as I'm concerned cussing or using questionable language takes a back seat to outright personal attacks. And I believe calling street an idiot falls under that umbrella. Whether you realize it or not, your rebuttals drip with condescension and tend to completely dismiss any statements or opinions that aren't 100% in agreement with your own. Your methods are thinly veiled passive-agressive attacks. Just look at your quote above... "I have every right to give as I get, as long as I do not cuss, or otherwise threaten the idiots in any way." The tone of that sentence can be altered dramatically by changing "the idiots" to "them". Simple. Surely you must realize the affect this has. Rather than diffuse the situation, your responses inflame them. Simply stating "I don't agree with your opinion" is a sufficient way to end discourse. No need to resort to personal attacks. To do so, only shows that one has nothing left to counter with. When that happens it's best just to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Again, sorry to use you as an example, but as one of the more opinionated and boisterous posters here (and a moderator to boot) you have a large influence on the tone and method of discourse that occurs in this forum.

Kalshion has brought to my attention that my reply was a bit one-sided so I'd like to amend my comment about the personal attacks (I can't edit my original post or I would.) I don't simply support street in his contentions, I support and encourage everyone to try and keep the tone civil. It's impossible to discern the entirety of someone's character or intelligence based on a few dozen or even hundred's of posts. To do so is to make an awful lot of assumptions, and we all know what they say about assuming things. The main reason I no longer participate in most of these discussions is because of the tendency for them to degrade into pointless shouting matches. I also want to include my own reply to Kalshion because I think it bears repeating: However, Jaguar IS a moderator, and as I stated he should be able to place himself above the name calling and general animosity that gets tossed around on these boards. He has the responsibility to keep this sort of stuff from happening, instead I see him participating in, and at times encouraging it. No disrespect Jaguar and I'm certainly not calling for you to step down. And if it seems like I'm singling you out it's only because of your position as moderator. I don't think you are any more or less guilty than anyone else who's crossed the line at times.

Kalshion has brought to my attention that my reply was a bit one-sided so I'd like to amend my comment about the personal attacks (I can't edit my original post or I would.) I don't simply support street in his contentions, I support and encourage everyone to try and keep the tone civil. It's impossible to discern the entirety of someone's character or intelligence based on a few dozen or even hundred's of posts. To do so is to make an awful lot of assumptions, and we all know what they say about assuming things. The main reason I no longer participate in most of these discussions is because of the tendency for them to degrade into pointless shouting matches. I also want to include my own reply to Kalshion because I think it bears repeating: However, Jaguar IS a moderator, and as I stated he should be able to place himself above the name calling and general animosity that gets tossed around on these boards. He has the responsibility to keep this sort of stuff from happening, instead I see him participating in, and at times encouraging it. No disrespect Jaguar and I'm certainly not calling for you to step down. And if it seems like I'm singling you out it's only because of your position as moderator. I don't think you are any more or less guilty than anyone else who's crossed the line at times.

Monkey see, Monkey do. War is a creation of Man. War can be abolished by Man. It's a choice and the sooner you all understand that the sooner Wars will cease to be necessary. Believing it is inevitable is barbaric and only shows how immature the human race really is. Street, for what it's worth you have my support in condemning the personal attacks made by Jaguar and others. Jag, Race is right, your position as moderator implies a certain responsibility to set the tone on these boards. In my opinion you've failed that responsibility miserably.

Monkey see, Monkey do. War is a creation of Man. War can be abolished by Man. It's a choice and the sooner you all understand that the sooner Wars will cease to be necessary. Believing it is inevitable is barbaric and only shows how immature the human race really is. Street, for what it's worth you have my support in condemning the personal attacks made by Jaguar and others. Jag, Race is right, your position as moderator implies a certain responsibility to set the tone on these boards. In my opinion you've failed that responsibility miserably.

The irony in all of this is that if the two of you were to meet in person, you'd probably find some common ground. It's far too easy to sit behind a PC and let loose with insults, insinuation etc... The great thing about this country is that for every Jaguar we have a Street. It's necessary for a healthy democracy and as long as we are able to keep perspective and allow room for difference of opinion we'll do just fine. Keep up the exchange, but keep it civil. You know what they say about arguing on the internet.