RPGmasterBoo

I'm too lazy to read this armchair commando discussion. I don't believe either of the sides is innocent in this everlasting conflict so the available options are either: picking a side or staying neutral. I support Israel because: a) I admire their perseverance and will to fight (Israel has essentially been at war in one form or another since day one) b) I'm inclined to dislike their enemies by default and we've had nothing but good relations with them

Nothing too revealing. Most players are from good or excellent european clubs, morale is a huge factor (which makes this win very important), excellent defense, good midfield and lack of really powerful offensive players. The reason for the success against Germany is the similarities in playing style combined with an all or nothing approach following the loss against Ghana. Australia is the final group opponent and although on paper Serbia has better players, most feel that the weak Aussie performance against Germany doesn't necessarily mean that they will be an easy opponent. The results are tight in the group D and even a victory might not be enough to go further. The game will enormously depend on the confidence of the players, if they play to their potential a win can be expected. Overall Serbia can play any of the best European teams and stand an equal chance of winning and losing. That's the playing style they're familiar with and that's where they can perform well.

Not really. Serbia got 4 cards, Germans got 5. The ref was very strict, almost any physical contact resulted in a yellow card - but fair. We got to play with a player more, they got a free penalty. Plenty of shots at the goal from both sides. It was an even thing, down to the end.

Podolski can't score a penalty.

Germany kaput. Hehe. About time too.

A list that doesn't have Irenicus in the top 10 isn't worth discussing.

There is quite a jump from "widely supported" to "monolithic conspiracy". I don't presume that everyone is acting on it, only that terrorist actions are not viewed with the same contempt you have for them. That's a good assertion because its essentially correct. Hell, my best friend when I was in primary school in Botswana was a Saudi. But personal feelings and relations have nothing to do with geopolitics. Those are two completely different things. That's a lesson we in the Balkans know better. You'd be hard pressed to see anything wrong in day to day life in Bosnia now, but everyone knows that if a pin drops all hell will break loose. And what look like good neighbors today will be at each others throat tomorrow. You have never lived next to a civilization fundamentally incompatible with yours, so you have no conception of a conflict where the attempted outcome is cultural extinction. Even the worst moment for Britain in the 20th century, the Nazi aerial bombardments weren't a threat of a war of annihilation but a war of conquest. If you think this is a paranoid fantasy you can look at what the Albanians in their triumphalism have done after the US won the war for them: burned christian churches and monasteries (what's left of them is protected by foreign troops and surrounded by barbed wire), wrecked graveyards, changed the names of places, killed and ghettoed what remained of the non-Albanian population. In short erased all trace of the existence of anyone else but them - under the protection of the US. This is the reality: The cross is on a christian church, you can guess the rest. Last week they cut off phone lines and destroyed cell phone relays to Serbia, and what little is left of the Serb population in the north is completely cut off. Everyone suspects what's going to happen next. What would you propose in such a situation? A cup of tea?

This boils down to your belief that the people who commit these acts are extremists and do not enjoy widespread support in the muslim community. Unless you have concrete evidence that that is the case, like my own opinion on the matter - its no better than a hunch. I would agree about all the other groups you mentioned, since none of them have a strong international backing (patron country).

In the last few days I've seen: Gran Torino: Clint Eastwood flick on racial relations, packaged in a story about an old man trying to reform the Hmong kid from next door. A fine film, although derivative and predictable. If it weren't for Eastwood playing the lead role, it would be unremarkable. There Will be Blood: A character study of archetype American businessman set at the turn of the century in the US (early expansion of oil industry). Wonderfully shot and acted, but the transformation of the principal character makes little sense, and the ending is completely out of place. Overall the film is a mixed bag. No Country for Old Men: Coen brothers thriller set in Texas. Eschews genre conventions and cliched story arcs in favor of a more "real life" approach. I liked it quite a bit. One of the better films of the decade. Thank you for Smoking: A satire of lobbying and the culture that spawns it centered around a charismatic tobacco PR. A good comedy, I recommend it.

I'm sure they were just attempting dialog.

It appears ****roaches will have company after the world ends.

I would.

No it's not, there's a fundamental difference between a national flag and yellow polka-dots (unless the national flag happens to be yellow polka-dots of course). In the context of being decent to other people, not really. The people have an irrational dislike for the American flag in a certain context. Intentionally wearing it in that context for the purpose of irking them is being obnoxious. Anyone who doesn't see that needs to learn some social skills. Put your nationalistic pride aside, they don't "hate america" and aren't going to ruin your country. What about the other side of the argument: are they entitled to have an irrational dislike of the American flag in America, and threaten violence to people wearing it? Because if they are, then you could just as easily say that Americans are entitled to dislike the Mexican flag and threaten violence to anyone wearing it. You're ignoring the other side, which has indirectly threatened violence, provocation or no. If the schoolyard antics don't qualify as threats, the 200 angry marching protesters "demanding respect" definitely do.

Don't give yourself a heart attack in the meanwhile. Btw I don't understand this "white man's responsibility to the world he's oppressed". I'm not a Victorian lord drawing borders on blank map of Africa, or a SS-Totenkopfverb

Ah, self appointed mods, what praytell offends your delicate sensibilities? The post quote from Boo that explains a very select act predominately executed by Asians? Seriously? Careful, Hurlshot may puke on you. Jeez I was just relaying what the wikipedia article said, and noted a recent case on these parts that seems to be similar. This may clear up the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amok

1. True, but it is in the process of being built. It is the goal of dedicated muslim religious leaders. A perfectly legitimate one, unfortunately. 2. Also true, but those reasons are a unifying factor of sorts. 3. For the moment yes. 4. I don't believe its a monolith, but I wouldn't ignore existing attempts to create one. 5. Dunno what to say about that except that its unlikely to happen. If it does, it certainly will be a one sided affair unless Pakistan and Iran (with nukes) participate. Personally I want more European unity in general and a more aggressive and coordinated stance on the matter. Eg: when the Swiss, for perfectly natural reasons and within democratic procedure outlaw minarets they should not come under fire from self righteous european liberals. It should be made very clear what any minority can and cannot do in a country. That is not clear at the moment. And if possible a cessation of support for muslims in the Balkans which was misplaced from the start. Making an enemy out of a natural ally and an ally out of your enemy is not master politics. I agree that the most effective way to end terrorism is to ignore it completely. If the media could be forced to do so, it would end the problem in a day, so to speak. I'm not a fanatic believer in democracy. I've lived in an authoritarian state and in a democratic state, and been to various european countries. The difference is not as great for the average person as the various ideologies would make you believe, especially when the authoritarianism isn't ideologically motivated. Both have their specific "rules of the game" and not following them ends with predictable results. Basically I believe in what works at the required moment. If you're old enough you've seen both the last days of Franco's rule and the beginning of the democratic government. I doubt there was a huge difference but I may be wrong. Now since you're so keen to listen let me tell you my beef with the Jihad (at the moment): 1. Bosnia. Bosnia is not, and never will be a unified and functional country. Its two separate (three actually, but the Croatian one is tiny and unimportant) religion based entities held together with the chewing gum of the Dayton peace accords. The muslim entity is pushing for unity and the dissolution of Republika Srpska (the serbian entity). Then a united Bosnia is to be ruled from (muslim) Sarajevo. In this they are wholeheartedly supported bu the US and the EU. Much has been done to diminish the powers granted to R.S. by the Dayton peace accords, and since Serbia can't give much support this campaign has been successful. I do not know why the west is pushing this issue so adamantly. R.S. cannot and will not allow itself to be ruled by the Sarajevo government out of quite realistic fears of what such rule would entail. It is pushing Bosnia dangerously close to another civil war, without any need to do so. The muslim entity is a bus stop for terrorists on its way to europe. The government there is granting asylum and passports to every Taliban criminal that comes knocking. It is also allowing the fundementalist vehabbis imported from Saudi Arabia free reign and a place to teach their beliefs. Frankly, they're not doing this out of EU hate, they're doing it because countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran give a lot of money for this to be done. In short, its becoming a breeding ground for terrorism - something it never was. It is also attempting to control and incite the generally peaceful muslims that live in Serbia and has caused us a lot of trouble. The serbian entity has two real aspirations. One is to join the EU, the other to be a part of Serbia. It is almost 100% Serbian and completely uninterested in the proposed Bosnian unity and bosnian state. After all, it shares a border with Serbia which is the motherland of its people, why should it care about Bosnia? Take into account that this isn't some small province, its half of Bosnia. A perfectly peaceful solution would be to split Bosnia along existing borders, give Croatia and Serbia their respective populations and an independent state for the muslims. Yet the west insists on keeping a failed state like Bosnia alive for no reason other than to show an apparent "consistency" in its politics. It is perfectly possible that another slaughter will erupt over this, as both sides are quite eager to settle old scores. Its also doing itself a disservice by allowing terrorists a safe haven right next to EU. That is an example of the short sighted and amorphous policy I was referring to earlier. I'll get to the latter two (Sandzak and Kosovo) tomorrow, too tired to continue now.

1) If you've met the kind of scum that makes up ultra groups, then you know that these morons also follow a philosophy of violence. Get caught by them alone and wearing the wrong tee or scarf, and you're guaranteed to end up in a hospital. It's the perceived connection of these Muslim agitators to terrorism that gives people the impression that they are more dangerous and better organized than common criminals or violent hooligans. 2) I saw the video. The cops were all over him, douching him with pepper sprays in like a fraction of a second. What I didn't catch is, did he continue the lecture after the attack? He wasn't seriously injured, so he could have. He should have. I think your mistake is believing that there are two sorts of people: "violent extremists" and "folk with common sense" (muslim or otherwise) and neglecting that the truly assimilated part of muslim immigration is also a minority. Between these two minorities is the actual majority, a religious core that may live in european countries but will never accept european civilization. To them, the truth is what the imam says on his weekly prayer, and if he says that this or that character has offended Islam you can be sure that a handful will go to look for him. The characters on these videos are not really terrorists - they're regular angry believers, and that's worrying. Meshugger is on the right track. I think you have to face the somewhat unsurprising fact that the Islamic religion is and will be for a long time - a more appealing and stronger identity than the secular one you're offering. History shows how long and arduous the battle for secularization was in Europe. It took a lot of will and effort to challenge the medieval christian identity. And it took time. There is no such effort in the Islamic world. Indeed its major centers are pushing in the opposite direction - for a stronger religious identity, and hopefully one that is definitely above any and all national identities. So the real battle is not on the streets, its a battle of ideas and the western world is losing. You know fully well how much effort it took to mobilize for the war in Iraq. How much convincing do you think most Islamic states and their populations would need to wage war on any western country, if only they were in a position to do so? What I'm trying to say is that these people have a collective vision, a basic consensus, while the western world is hopelessly polarized right down to the lecture halls of universities. There is no immediate threat here (because the west is still economically and militarily superior) but logic shows that this state of affairs, present more or less since the end of the cold war, is not a good one. I assume you live in the US. The problems that the EU faces in regard to this aren't nearly as present in the US because the US is not a primary target for Islamic immigration. Indeed I don't see this as being a US problem at any time in the future, apart from possible and ineffectual terrorist attacks.

The Germans and their gold aided Lenin in the commission of his goal, since the two had goals which happened to line up in 1917. They did not make him believe in national self-determination. So its okay for a communist revolutionary to be on german imperial payroll? Of course not because he didn't belive in it. He knew the simple fact: the national identity is stronger than identification with the proletariat. He'd never control the vast territory of the peasant and religious Russian empire. To resolve that problem and balance the power of ethnic russians he'd give everyone he could their state, so as to keep the majority in check.

What is justice? Its everyone getting punished.

I doubt liberalism is the problem. Freedom of speech, civil rights, political freedoms... those things are what social and political liberalism stands for. Well, you can pretty much substitute "muslims" with any other fringe group with violent tendencies, and the statement doesn't lose an ounce of truth. Supremacists, nazis, extreme left, cultists... you name it. Only, our tolerance threshold seems to be higher for religious fascists (unless they are Christians). This would end if we stopped considering their message at all and considered only their acts. In a democracy, violence and threats are not accepted as a valid way to convey one's message. Therefore, they are criminals. Punish them as criminals. That's all there is to it. I wonder if there's some hard data on how statistically significant are these attacks compared to say, hooligan violence, regular violent crime or just random nightclub brawls. Because unless they are, it's only as serious as people allow fearmongering to affect their thinking. But hey, what the hell do I know. My fellow citizens elected our current president at gunpoint, so perhaps it's time we had a big ol' world war to remind all those yellow-bellied wankers that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I was referring to the modern positive discrimination and political correctness policies, which seem to have been incorporated in liberalism. I believe that this amorphous policy, full of double standards, is damaging to the clear and traditional nation based politics that Europe has had ever since the Peace of Westphalia. The nation state might not be without its faults, but I'm not liking the alternative very much. Yeah, but you're forgetting that the muslim world is a very large political entity and that its "fringe" elements may not be as fringe as many people believe. Obviously these attacks are in themselves insignificant, as is every terrorist action including 9/11. In the grand scheme of things its like taking a one screw out of a factory. But they have great symbolic value and failing to reply adequately makes EU and US seem weak and indecisive. It also encourages further such attempts. Its mob rules, you can't remain on top unless you make a show of force from time to time. Discussion is for when someone is actually willing to talk.

Yes.

So much for justice.

I believe I used the word punk, and yes the 200 kids who marched are also being punks. Do you really believe these 5 students just innocently showed up with US flag bandanna's and matching T-shirts? They just happened to all coordinate their wardrobes on this day? You have a series of bad decisions being made here. It started when these 5 boys decided to synchronize their clothing on a day of a Mexican Heritage Celebration. All parties should be held accountable. I completely agree, as an ex-teacher myself. Is Steve around? Maybe he'll back us up too. The question is: were they feeling lucky? Btw what's the excuse for not sending the 200 kids home as well?

Do they? I think this was the point all along. Games appear to be created exclusively to entertain, which doesn't fit with other definitions of art.

Why, because a bunch of ****heads went and tried to beat somebody up? So, what else is new? Seriously, it's not like the news is that Iran finally has the bomb. Those asswipes can get thrown in jail like the common thugs they are. Why do they deserve special attention? Never said they did. I think (like the US flag thing) its indicative of a larger problem that the current liberal ideology is mishandling completely.