• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chickens coming home to roost?

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
42,639
Reaction score
11,376
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
An article by Jack Perry at Lew Rockwell asks some interesting questions.

Spare Me the Maudlin Theatrics, Please - LewRockwell

Any thoughts?

.

Have the seeds we have been sowing with the War On Terror bearing unexpected fruit?

I think the usual suspects are doing what they always do, which is try and manipulate a tragedy for their own ends. In this case, to try and blame the government for this and thereby excuse what the shooter did
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,484
Reaction score
7,998
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I think you should find better sites to read than one run by a well known racist and anti-semite

That's very important you know, your opinion of Lew Rockwell. I suppose that means you did not read Jack Perry's article?

Some things are just too uncomfortable to read, eh? :lol:
 

_Sal

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
6,472
Reaction score
2,705
Location
somewhere across the border in the great North
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think you should find better sites to read than one run by a well known racist and anti-semite

I don't know this guy but:

Again, when you justify the killing of other people based on the “They Are Not Us” philosophy, that is exactly the belief system people will take home and manifest into your society later. See, the only justifiable reason for killing another human being is immediate self-defense. Not “pre-emptive” hogwash or “regime change” or “liberating” people. Because when you say that killing people is getting people to do things you tell them to do by other means, then you should not be at all surprised when this blows up in your face. Literally.

in this case, his reasoning is sound

truth is truth regardless of the source
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,484
Reaction score
7,998
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't know this guy but:



in this case, his reasoning is sound

truth is truth regardless of the source

That's very important you know, your opinion of Lew Rockwell. I suppose that means you did not read Jack Perry's article?

Some things are just too uncomfortable to read, eh? :lol:

Maybe you should have read the article, this retard is saying that we shouldn't be teaching violence at all. We would mean no standing army, or even a trained reserve, just for self-defense. That doesn't seem like "sound reasoning" to me it sounds like stupidity.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,241
Reaction score
41,753
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
An article by Jack Perry at Lew Rockwell asks some interesting questions.

Spare Me the Maudlin Theatrics, Please - LewRockwell

Any thoughts?

Have the seeds we have been sowing with the War On Terror bearing unexpected fruit?

The US violent crime rate continues to drop since the "war on terrror" so it must be because of that. ;)

That one article was from the New York Times on May 23, 2011. Yet this article, too, seemed to downplay the great news with a title that was far from inspiring, "Steady Decline in Major Crime Baffles Experts." But at least this one report laid out some of the astounding statistics:


"The number of violent crimes in the United States dropped significantly last year, to what appeared to be the lowest rate in nearly 40 years. In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States. Small towns, especially, are seeing far fewer murders: In cities with populations under 10,000, the number plunged by more than 25 percent last year."


The author of this article used the words "appeared to be the lowest rate," and "the country appears to be safer." When this information is based on FBI statistics, why does he water down this most inspiring news by using the word "appear"? And the FBI statistics actually show that the odds of being murdered or robbed are not just "less than half," but actually one-third of what they were in the early 1990s. And according to the FBI chart, rape rates have dropped to one-sixth of what they were 20 years ago! How awesome is that!!!

Violent Crime Rate's Dramatic Reduction - FBI Statistics
 
Last edited:

_Sal

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
6,472
Reaction score
2,705
Location
somewhere across the border in the great North
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Maybe you should have read the article, this retard is saying that we shouldn't be teaching violence at all. We would mean no standing army, or even a trained reserve, just for self-defense. That doesn't seem like "sound reasoning" to me it sounds like stupidity.
I did read the article and new times call for new measures.

you can not randomly make people into killing machines and just think all can handle it later

in fact most later have a terrible time grappling with taking a life even under intense war situations we know this from studies done starting with WWll

we have drastically reduced the amount of time people can stay in combat situations simply because it destroys a large number of people mentally and emotionally

it is that simple

call him what you want it doesn't alter the fact that RAMBO isn't real
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Maybe you should have read the article, this retard is saying that we shouldn't be teaching violence at all. We would mean no standing army, or even a trained reserve, just for self-defense. That doesn't seem like "sound reasoning" to me it sounds like stupidity.

No, he's not saying that.

He is saying that when we teach violence and hold it up as a solution to all problems anywhere in the world, we should expect some level of blowback.

He is saying when the government practices that there is a military solution to each and every problem in the world, we should not be surprised when individuals take that philosophy to heart, and also apply it to any problems they might perceive.

That is, violence begets violence.

Not that violence cannot happen on its own, but when violence is demonstrated by the government to be the solution for all the world's problems, ordinary citizens will often embrace that philosophy.

To paraphrase Brandeis, for better or for worse, the government teaches by example. That's what Perry was talking about.
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I did read the article and new times call for new measures.

you can not randomly make people into killing machines and just think all can handle it later

in fact most later have a terrible time grappling with taking a life even under intense war situations we know this from studies done starting with WWll

we have drastically reduced the amount of time people can stay in combat situations simply because it destroys a large number of people mentally and emotionally

it is that simple

call him what you want it doesn't alter the fact that RAMBO isn't real

Bravo! For some reason there is no "like" button for your post, but I agree completely.
 

_Sal

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
6,472
Reaction score
2,705
Location
somewhere across the border in the great North
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Bravo! For some reason there is no "like" button for your post, but I agree completely.
thanks Thoreau

the psychological components involved when taking the life of another even when justified are often misunderstood or over looked by people either intentionally or due to an agenda

it is still new territory with only about 125 year history...that is new for mind study :mrgreen: since it's all chemical
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,484
Reaction score
7,998
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, he's not saying that.

He is saying that when we teach violence and hold it up as a solution to all problems anywhere in the world, we should expect some level of blowback.

He is saying when the government practices that there is a military solution to each and every problem in the world, we should not be surprised when individuals take that philosophy to heart, and also apply it to any problems they might perceive.

That is, violence begets violence.

Not that violence cannot happen on its own, but when violence is demonstrated by the government to be the solution for all the world's problems, ordinary citizens will often embrace that philosophy.

To paraphrase Brandeis, for better or for worse, the government teaches by example. That's what Perry was talking about.

And whether we got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan or not this guy still would have been a govt trained killer and this hack job would write the same article using a tragedy to push his political agenda
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What a Pied Piper piece for the ignorant. That is fine propaganda. It is neither analysis nor fine thinking.

No, much better to just charge headlong into "kill 'em all and let God or Allah sort 'em out". Sure joG.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Maybe you should have read the article, this retard is saying that we shouldn't be teaching violence at all. We would mean no standing army, or even a trained reserve, just for self-defense. That doesn't seem like "sound reasoning" to me it sounds like stupidity.

I am afraid, you are right concerning the content. Where I believe you err is in assuming the writer is a retard. I think it much more probably that it is a disinformation procedure of propagandistic intent and the writer of normal or even higher intelligence.
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
And whether we got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan or not this guy still would have been a govt trained killer and this hack job would write the same article using a tragedy to push his political agenda

That is a hypothetical of course, so we both know you can't prove that.

But what effect do you suppose US drones killing innocents all over the globe, including where this guy was stationed for awhile, had on this man's head? Do you suppose it made him angry?

If violence is a solution for an angry government, can it also be a solution for an angry soldier?
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
No, much better to just charge headlong into "kill 'em all and let God or Allah sort 'em out". Sure joG.

Not at all. But that is not the only or even one of the intelligent alternatives. Your remark here and the article for that matter, are so far away from rational discussion that it is hard to see, Where one would have to start the debate with you.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,484
Reaction score
7,998
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is a hypothetical of course, so we both know you can't prove that.

But what effect do you suppose US drones killing innocents all over the globe, including where this guy was stationed for awhile, had on this man's head? Do you suppose it made him angry?

If violence is a solution for an angry government, can it also be a solution for an angry soldier?

Too a stupid one, who doesn't understand the difference between a country choosing to go war in self defense and randomly killing white cops in Texas because a cop in Minnesota made a bad decision, sure.

I would guess those aren't able to discern the difference is who the target audience for the article anyways.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,241
Reaction score
41,753
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No, he's not saying that.

He is saying that when we teach violence and hold it up as a solution to all problems anywhere in the world, we should expect some level of blowback.

He is saying when the government practices that there is a military solution to each and every problem in the world, we should not be surprised when individuals take that philosophy to heart, and also apply it to any problems they might perceive.

That is, violence begets violence.

Not that violence cannot happen on its own, but when violence is demonstrated by the government to be the solution for all the world's problems, ordinary citizens will often embrace that philosophy.

To paraphrase Brandeis, for better or for worse, the government teaches by example. That's what Perry was talking about.

Why didn't we see a huge increase in violent crime during and following WWII when a far higher percentage of our population was direcly invloved in the war effort? I get it that the author is against use of (US?) military force but to assert that it (only the war on terror?) causes violent crime (mass shootings?) is not supported by any facts. Everyone else in his NG unit, who was deployed in Afghanistan along side him, seemed to have managaed not to become a crazed, racist, cop killer. A few chickens will go rogue (engage in violent crime) regardless of US foreign policy or their mllilitary service status. This OP linked writer has a theory but not much to support it.
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Too a stupid one, who doesn't understand the difference between a country choosing to go war in self defense and randomly killing white cops in Texas because a cop in Minnesota made a bad decision, sure.

I would guess those aren't able to discern the difference is who the target audience for the article anyways.

After the recent Chilcot enquiry, and all these year after the fraud and deception involved in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it seems to me that the claim we did those things can only come from a stupid observer, as long as you're throwing around the "stupid" label. :peace
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
which specific part is psychologically unsound?

I am more interested in the intellectual side of it than the psychological one, though, the psychology of propaganda is certainly interesting. The question at the center of the argument is the creation of security, who should do it and how it should be undertaken. This is no small field and the answers are complicates and non-trivial. An essay like the one linked in the opener simplifies and argues facilely, but leaves away the academic thought processes necessary to describe even the elemental structure of the problems entailed. The simplified argument thus sounds persuasive enough and emotionally pleasing. This is often the case, when a salesperson explains the upside but forgets the risks of the commodity.
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why didn't we see a huge increase in violent crime during and following WWII when a far higher percentage of our population was direcly invloved in the war effort? I get it that the author is against use of (US?) military force but to assert that it (only the war on terror?) causes violent crime (mass shootings?) is not supported by any facts. Everyone else in his NG unit, who was deployed in Afghanistan along side him, seemed to have managaed not to become a crazed, racist, cop killer. A few chickens will go rogue (engage in violent crime) regardless of US foreign policy or their mllilitary service status. This OP linked writer has a theory but not much to support it.

Perhaps because WWII was legitimate while the never declared and never ending war on terror is perceived by many as being illegitimate?

Perhaps because the Axis powers really, actually invaded other countries and we were actually the good guys in that case?

Perhaps because nowadays any person willing to examine the facts and suppress cognitive dissonance understands the fraud of the war on terror?
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,484
Reaction score
7,998
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am afraid, you are right concerning the content. Where I believe you err is in assuming the writer is a retard. I think it much more probably that it is a disinformation procedure of propagandistic intent and the writer of normal or even higher intelligence.

I guess it all depends on your perspective. Is Alex Jones just a smart guy saying stuff he knows is stupid or is he just a crazy guy who really be lives all that stuff he says? It's just hard for me to believe that so many on the far right live that dishonest of a lifestyle every second of every day. Maybe I'm just an optimist.
 

_Sal

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
6,472
Reaction score
2,705
Location
somewhere across the border in the great North
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I am more interested in the intellectual side of it than the psychological one, though, the psychology of propaganda is certainly interesting. The question at the center of the argument is the creation of security, who should do it and how it should be undertaken. This is no small field and the answers are complicates and non-trivial. An essay like the one linked in the opener simplifies and argues facilely, but leaves away the academic thought processes necessary to describe even the elemental structure of the problems entailed. The simplified argument thus sounds persuasive enough and emotionally pleasing. This is often the case, when a salesperson explains the upside but forgets the risks of the commodity.

no because you can not ignore the psychology of human kind...there can be no solution for security unless looked at as a whole...you will never come up with a solution that will work until the whole is considered

it is not a simplified argument it is merely a "point" in the whole

but it is a vital component
 
Top Bottom