Sunday, June 3, 2012

7.017 Billion Monkeys Can't Stop The Bloodshed

What kind of world do we live in where a 25-year-old Liberian refugee in the Marine Corps is killed in action in Afghanistan fighting for an elitist unsustainable American cause?

What kind of world do we live in where BLOOD is an EQUAL exchange for OIL?

What kind of world do we live in where being heroic (being made a man out of - or having a dream) involves killing or being killed?

What kind of world do we live in where life is not honored, and DEATH is glorified over recognition for LIVING A FULL LIFE and giving unto others as opposed to being taken away and never having the chance to do better?

What kind of a world do we live in that allows a man to die for these stupid reasons without saying goodbye to his wife and 18-month-old baby?

What kind of a world do we live in that we can just ignore these facts?

Does that seem like a fair and reasonable trade-off to you?

If so, then there is something REALLY fucking wrong with you.

Source: personal experience and THIS::



"Our real enemies are not those living in a distant land whose names or policies we don't understand; The real enemy is a system that wages war when it's profitable, the CEOs who lay us off our jobs when it's profitable, the Insurance Companies who deny us Health care when it's profitable, the Banks who take away our homes when it's profitable. Our enemies are not several hundred thousand miles away. They are right here in front of us." - Mike Prysner

And THIS:



"Our founding fathers told us, George Carlin and Bill Hicks told us, Presidents have told us, Generals have told us, and we're telling you. Wake Up." -- Occupy Marine Corps

Please Support the Veterans at: http://www.ivaw.org/ Also visit www.antiwar.com

The name of the track used is Boards of Canada -Davyan Cowboy Speech Transcript: http://dotsub.com/view/749fb533-dad3-4105-a56e-565e3f6d0972/viewTranscript/eng

Watch with Spanish sub titles Asombroso discurso de un Veterano SUBTITULADO ESPAƑOL DISCURSO DE MIKE PRYSNER indicando quienes son el enemigo verdadero de su pais. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kWU-JHetMM

Semper Fi, brothers and sisters.

Brought to you by:

Static
Krapsody - the place to find out of the ordinary humor
the Land of Arse
USA
It's All Krap All The Time
funny pics & videos, humor, comedy, satire
Visit Krapsody.com and request a signature like this!


13 comments:

Julio said...

Deep. Though I do disagree that our occupations are based on racism. They're based on oil profits.

For example: Why did we liberate the LYBIAN PEOPLE almost IMMEDIATELY after the uprising, yet it has been an ENTIRE YEAR since the SYRIAN UPRISING and we have still done NOTHING. Answer: Lybia is the 12th largest producer in the world. Syria isn't even on the list. Nuff said.

Julio said...

Afghanistan was a justified war in my opinion. The shelterers of al-Qaeda were the Taliban. The Taliban were some brutal bastards, and their system of "justice" was beheading people in the streets. Their economy was based entirely on heroine (still is, which is why we should be building not bombing). Until Afghanistan can defend itself against the Taliban (90% military can neither read nor write, nor COUNT...seriously, they can't count because they never learned numbers). It should be sometime soon though. Just look at Iraq.

WE'RE NO LONGER AT WAR IN IRAQ. Some troops remain to train the Iraqi army. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iraq-war-end-bittersweet-soldiers-veterans/story?id=15162005#.T8yzbdXuq3s

The SENSATIONALSIT MEDIA seems to think that when you end a war, you mention it once and bury it on the 12th page, but when you start one, it's on the front page for the entire duration. WE ENDED THE WAR IN IRAQ AND NO ONE SEEMS TO THINK: Hmm, that Obama guy ended the war that we've been complaining about for 9 years...maybe I should --- OMG, LOOK, A GREEN POODLE!

Static said...

"a justified war"?

Really? When is war justified...when someone attacks us, then perhaps it is. When we are sure who it is who has actually attacked us or where they've gone beyond a reasonable doubt (following hunches doesn't count,) then no I don't believe war is justifiable. I agree the Taliban had some brutal methods of justice but that in itself is not a justifiable excuse for war. If it were then we should also have invaded both Sudan and Rwanda.

Do you seriously believe that I or anyone reading this is not aware the "Iraq War" is over...it was over before Obama was in office technically. The only reason our troops stayed on was to protect American interests from "insurgents" and I use the term loosely.

That wasn't my point here at all, dude. My point was that these "wars" and "occupations" (preemptive strikes done in hysteria and premeditated murder for political gainand natural resource acquisition) are and were pointless for the most point.

My second point was that the stories behind the wars need to be told. That's the most important point here. Knowing that the war occurred and ended is not nearly enough. Having recollections and details is paramount to getting FACTS. Humanizing the horrors and atrocities of war in the hopes of preventing future wars is even more important than that.

Were the Taliban deserving of quick justice...was Saddam Hussein a reprehensible human being...did Gaddafi deserve his fate? Maybe so. But these were just distractions, Beau. At times we are all easily misled by various propaganda.

Static said...

And by propaganda, Beau, I do mean racism as but one example. Cultural elitism and nationalism are other examples here. The military (the art of warfare in general) has long used the tactic of dehumanizing the "enemy" by perpetuating stereotypes, myths, and lies to instill hatred for a group of people so that psychologically it justifies killing them. We can't afford to be naive about the facts or reality of this anymore, friend. Racism justifies inhumane treatment, including neglect of basic human needs.

/ end rant.

Julio said...

I did not intend to make a counter argument in response to an argument that you made. If I had done so, my Philosophy training would require that I explicitly state what your argument is, and then provide premise-by-premise comparison of your argument and my response. I simply was commenting on the story and surrounding topics.

As for Iraqi, I did not intend to insinuate that you did not know about the end of the war, though I now see how you could interpret it that way. I made the comment because I myself wasn't sure if the war was really "over" and I was ranting against the media, not you, for not really making as big a deal as they should have about this. Nor does anyone seem to mention it. Ron Paul still talks about our TWO unsustainable wars...

As far as Afghanistan, I mentioned not just that they were brutal. They also sheltered al-Qaeda. Admittedly, and proudly, I might add. This was not any hunch, as the WMD's in Iraq was. This was as certain as any war-time truth can be. I suppose I should have stressed this more than their brutality, but I felt that the brutality was important not as a reason to GO to war, but to STAY in the war. We went to war because of al-Qaeda, but after we disrupted operations, we stayed because of the Taliban's brutality AND because of the very real fact that if they come into power, al-Qaeda would return as well.

I should also stress that the war in Iraq was COMPLETELY unjustified. BUT, the war in Iraq should in no way affect the validity of the war in Afghanistan. The two wars are completely different, as explained above.

Regarding Obama's role in ending the war, we have stayed in Iraq despite previous agreements that we would leave. So this is why Obama's decision was an actual decision.

The argument you make in your post, I believe, DOES apply to Iraq, in every conceivable way. But I disagree that it applies to Afghanistan.

Static said...

I understand what you are saying, whether you implicitly or explicity implied an argument for war, etc. And I really do not wish to come across as combative or disagreeable. I know that anything we say to one another that may be taken as offensive will be forgiven and forgotten in time.

BUT, dude, there is no real proof or hard evidence that al-Qaeda is even a real organization. There's no Islamic army or terrorist group called al-Qaeda. Informed intelligence officers know this. This was a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing a worlwide conspiracy and a looming threat only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the U.S. govt.

Al-Qaida or al-Qaeda, literally means "the database" (in Arabic it means "to sit on the toilet,") which was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians way back when. Former National Security Adviser to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative."

In essence many thousands have bought one of the biggest lies ever told to the American public and beyond. Hook line and sinker.

Wikileaks just touches upon the tip of the iceberg there. Don't ask me to cite sources, I can't be arsed. But you can look it up if you feel inclined. The internet is loaded w/free information -- some of it is useful -- and some of it useless tripe. Some have the opinion that Julian Assange and co. are full of it. But that is also a matter of speculation, conjecture and opinion. :)

Speaking of tripe. You want philosophy? In my opinion philosophy is not much more than the fine art of bullshit. Much of it is also conjecture, speculation and opinion. One person's viewpoint proposed as a guideline for agreement or argument on a number of issues. Nothing more. There are a number of perspectives therefore there are no absolutes. And opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. Book smarts or beliefs do not make up for a lack of common sense anymore than ignorance or deceptive intentions make up for skewing of facts.

Consider this:

"The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject." --Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor 121-180 A.D. Stoic philosopher

Basically what I'm saying is the facts are not that cut and dry at the end of the day, and nobody really knows jack shit to be blunt.

Sorry if that insults your sensibilities, or anyone elses, but I am tired of sugar-coating my truths and dancing around subjects to make others feel comfortable with me and my opinions. I have little time and patience for it atm and that's partly my own fault. So I apologize in advance for being short or abrasive. I'm getting too old for this shit.

And to be honest, I don't know jack shit either. But I hear he's a real smooth talker. :D

"Know thyself."

Normally this would be the part where I would say to the average netizen, "here, you might need this..it's your ass." But you and I are friends so I'll not go there with you. And I do wish you the best in everything, including your rebuttal on the efficacy or necessity of war or anything mentioned herein. :)

Julio said...

I am the unoffendable. Call my mother a horse, and I shalt rideth her unto the sunset. I simply did not desire to offend you. Since you too are unoffendable, then I no longer have to speak in this RIDICULOUS British accent.

First, on philosophy, the broadness of the term is itself misleading as to its content. Philosophy is simply the STUDY OF BELIEF. So I may have a crazy belief, and you a sane one, but Philosophy is the study of these beliefs. The practical use of this is to determine truth from falsity, though most things fall somewhere inbetween. Logical truths are necessarily true, but empirical truths (which make up most of our beliefs) are falsifiable, meaning that they COULD be proven false. The resolution here is that one must act on the belief which is supported by the BEST EVIDENCE. Though not perfect, the best evidence gives us the greatest likelihood of arriving at truth that we can find.

Now, let us look at the "best evidence" for this conspiracy theory you have for "al Qaeda." No reputable organization, fact-checkers, etc., have in any way suggested that al-Qaeda was make-believe. This goes beyond newspapers; there are many non-politically affiliated non-profits (Snopes; BBC; NPR; factcheck; politifact just to name a few) which debunk many "official" stories, yet none have made this an issue.

*Hint: You know you have a conspiracy theory when every reputable organization disagrees with you, and you therefore assume that they are ALL "in on it."

The fact that you don't have sources is even more reason to question the existence of such a conspiracy. Again, I cannot say that this conspiracy is impossible. This is an empirical matter, so either of us could be wrong. But the BEST EVIDENCE does not support your claims. Some self-named "CIA" operative who is not independently verified as being such is not in any way the "BEST EVIDENCE" available. Yes, we funded Bin Laden and his fighters during the occupation by Russia of Afghanistan. We essentially are responsible for this organization. But the BURDEN OF PROOF is on YOU to show that a conspiracy exists. Yes, they have the advantage, having themselves being the generators of most of the evidence. But there really isn't any organisation capable of determining terrorist groups than a government's intelligence agency. The fact that you don't trust the government is not itself proof that the government is lying. First of all, there is no such thing as "the government." It is a VAST organization with MILLIONS of people working within it. For a conspiracy to exist, you have to fathom the vast amount of people who would have to be involved in the conspiracy for it to avoid being exposed.

Again, no one has absolute certainty of these things, which is why conspiracy theories gain so much traction. Because it "could be," it often seems that it is. But mere possibility is not evidence enough of existence. The best evidence (the most politically independent news and information transmitters available) does not support this theory, NOR is there any credible, independently verifiable evidence outside of such a network. This is the only way for an individual to ensure that when they make a claim to truth, that they are not being pulled by the strings of the established powers OR the conspiracy theorists.

Static said...

What's the difference between you and a mallard with a cold? One's a sick duck and I can't remember how it ends, but your mother's a HORSE. She really is. =P

I kid, I kid. I'm glad to hear you feel that way. I'm a bit acerbic at times. Normally I am pretty reserved with my opinions until I feel the need to assert my point of view.
Some people don't know how to take that.

There is little that I am shocked or truly insulted by. My intentions are not to insult you, but to use extreme examples (shock tactics) as a way to get you to see that there might be something to what I said. Perspective, right?

Both of us are expressing somewhat extreme points of view here. No one, nothing, is without dogma. And to an extent I consider some of what I said, as well as what you have stated here, to have some validity.

Here's another extreme to think about...Bozo the Clown controls everything. No, seriously. Every time you think about watching porn when you don't have anything better to do (unless you're addicted and you can't help but look at it all day,) YEP. Bozo the Clown holds all the rights to every single porn video or photograph on the internet and beyond because he created it. Every dollar he makes from it he invests in a new pair of clown shoes, rubber nose, or squirting flower so that he can scare the living shit out of children everywhere. And then he goes and smokes a fat wad of $100 bills like a fine Cuban at the end of the day because that's how he rolls. Every jingle you've ever heard in a commercial on television? Yep, Bozo wrote all those songs. The oil, the fuel you put in your car: Bozo. The tobacco industry: Bozo. Outrageously expensive political campaigns funded by none other than the richest fucking clown in the world: Bozo. Half-assed safety engineering: Bozo. Medical science: Bozo. The space program: Bozo. Nuclear fusion: Bozo. Those moments that you ride your mother into the sunset? Bozo is responsible for those funny feelings you have when you do it!

Do you get where I'm going with this?

No, Bozo doesn't REALLY fucking exist. He is not a lone entity. He doesn't run shit either. He's a fictional character who can be any number of things to anybody. But in this case he does represent the archetypical megalomaniacal figure (or clown-figure) who thinks that they run everything. Clowns ARE in power if you think about it that sense. CEOs, politicians, authority figures in every shape and form; all a bunch of fucking clowns, Beau.

I am a fucking clown for that matter. Clown Boy as I am known in some circles. When you read my work it should be envisioned being read by Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, or a mentally challenged Shakespearean-trained actor with a lisp who slightly resembles John Malkovich.

Static said...

Furthermore, back on topic, after careful consideration of some of the "evidence" I have read on any of these subjects, I would say that it should be no surprise that we have been lied to about a great number of things.

You would be blind, or really naive to believe otherwise, perhaps even a bit dumb to think that others have our best interests at heart all the time, especially if they don't even know you. That's the "government" I am speaking of.

Frankly I do not trust government of any kind 100%. Give me one good reason that I should. Do they keep us safe? Mostly...when they can and it's convenient for them to. Has government provided an infrastructure with an economy that supports most of it's citizens? To a degree it has -- it's not without it's flaws or limitations but that is why we are discussing this. Do I trust them to make decisions for me or my life? Hell no. And neither should you. Democrat, republican, libertarian, independent, I don't give a fuck.

Politicians and people who are in charge of running things are liars. They do not care about you. I don't care how altruistic they appear to be either. Deep down, in the end, they are all about their own agendas because power always corrupts.

It should not be news to you that the CIA and the American government funded "terrorism". It should not be news that it backfired. It should not be news that bin Laden was hired by the CIA. It should not be news that Uncle Sam (Clown Boy numero uno) has mainstream media in "his" hip pocket.

You don't need to remind me that government is a large organization anymore than you need to remind me what philosophy is. That's a no-brainer. Philosophy, like anything else that involves human involvement and communication, is infectious. Here's another thing for you to consider: the greatest philosophers the world has ever known are partly responsible for irresponsible thinking. Human error is not just a made up term or fictional account to describe STUPIDITY. The greatest minds would concede that this is true. We are all human (a bunch of monkeys really,) and we are not without our own failings.

Even within government, there are but a few "lucky" individuals who make the most important decisions and in turn give directives to others and so on & so forth until things are so compartmentalized you don't know who's doing what to whom and/or who is actually running things anymore. And I'm pretty sure most of them don't even know the the full scope or gravity of their own dealings at some point, because those people are liars and manipulators. After a while if you lie enough to yourself and everyone else you begin to be confused by or believe in those lies.

Static said...

People don't want to see the ugly underbelly. They'd rather trust their "reputable sources" and let them make their decisions for them. This is lazy and ignorant thinking. It does not even classify as thinking really. They're brainwashed. Asleep at the wheel. They're sheeple.

Who are your "reputable sources"? I get my news from open source independent journalism. But even that has it's shortcomings. I use my own mental filter and nose to decide what smells like bullshit, and let me tell you there is a lot of bullshit out there.

Fox News? MSNBC? New York Times? The Guardian? etc. ad infinitum. Ha! Laughable, dude. Absolutely ridiculous entertainment reserved for a carnival sideshow.

Trust no one when it comes to your own decisions. Don't take my word, don't take the word of your professors, don't take the word of your peers, and for godsakes don't take the word of your politicians or media sources.

I am under no burden to prove anything here. Once again these distractions have served to take away from the real topic which was about how moral or ethical war is. HOW that impacts PEOPLE. Nice try in redirecting the argument. However, I'm a little savvy to that tactic. Savvy? ;)

All in all my friend, breaking the cycles, going against the grain, thinking for oneself; being "individual" in that sense takes not only determination and courage to stand up to others (fairly often even your own family members) -- it takes a very open mind and strong will to do this -- and if after being dragged through the mud for having your own thoughts and opinions; you cling to what is right and wrong when faced with lies and you've managed to think for yourself despite being told that you're wrong for thinking you're onto something -- then congratulations, welcome to the human race.

I encourage you to do your homework and that is all I have to say on the matter. As I said before, I really honestly have little or NO time for debating. But I am open to hearing or reading what you have to say. I just may not have the time to respond on each point. :)

Julio said...

The following is a lesson in logic, belief, knowledge and reasoning. Logic is the tool, reasoning is the practice, and belief and knowledge are the results. Don't resist this lesson because you think I'm trying to make myself appear superior to you. I believe that everyone has something to teach someone else. It isn't about superiority but about the exchanging of ideas.

Firstly, I find that when most people "debate," human nature deems that it usually be treated as a competitive practice, where one person "wins" and the other "loses." This is why debates rarely end in agreement, because neither party wants to be considered a "loser." I disagree with debate being competitive. I consider argumentation to be the best way to arrive at truth, and to allow another set of eyes to search for logical errors in one's argument. It becomes more than just what one "feels" to be true but rather what is "logically" true.

I. Reasoning

-As far as homework is concerned, I think everyone needs to take a look at and study this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

Do not continue reading until you have read what is contained in the link...

A-Having studied up on logic, we can now talk about "Thinking." Thinking, as you call it, is too broad for use in objective conversation. I can have a thought about a flying pig-bear, but this does not make it true. Everyone can think, but not everyone can think CORRECTLY. There is thinking, and there is REASONING. Reasoning is the use of necessarily true logical principles used in the formation of beliefs, which is required for the belief to constitute knowledge (justified true belief) as opposed to just any old belief.

B-I shall provide you with a brief lesson in what Philosophy, is SUPPOSED to be, namely, the translation of beliefs (what an individual holds to be true and false) into the form of verifiable arguments. In order to "think" as you so put it, you have to know the rules of thinking. Yes, there are rules, without which anyone could say anything and all would be equally true (e.g.,there is no objective reality = there is an objective reality; I'm not Jesus, I am Jesus; God wants me to kill babies, God doesn't want me to kill babies). We know this cannot be the case, else all discourse would be meaningless, as well as all beliefs.

C-But since we Do live in an objective reality, rules are required in order to analyze this reality in an objective manner. Arguments take the following form, and adhere the undeniable principles of logic: Premise + Premise = Conclusion, where the conclusion must follow necessarily from the combination of premises.

Julio said...

1. While much of the history of philosophy concerns itself with Metaphysics (the study of the inherent nature of the universe and/or existence), metaphysics itself died in the early 1800's at the hands of Emmanuel Kant. From then on, philosophy concerned itself with developing logical systems, semantic clarity (eliminating ambiguity), and valid argumentation. This is called "Analytic Philosophy," and does not contain any of the insane bullshit that you've read about in the early development of Philosophy which was dominated by the Catholic-Church dominated academic institutions.

2. PhilosoPHY, as a method, as opposed to PhilosophERS (as the manifestation of it), is the STUDY OF BELIEF. Both insane beliefs and sane beliefs are included in this study. This is the most apt. definition, and it is one that I have logically derived as all Philosophy is concerned with belief. The type of belief that philosophers attempt to find is but not just any belief. It is concerned with knowledge, that is, justified true (logically valid) belief. Many philosophers are just plan insane. No one will argue with that statement. But this does not in any way make the study of belief and the quest for knowledge any less valid.

3. So again, you need to set aside your preconceived ideas of philosophy in order to understand it for what it is intended to represent. Now what philosophers have discovered, but what philosophers have TRIED to discover. There is worth in the attempt. Logic is the tool of determining bullshit from truth, not some subjective gut instinct.


4. The most important tool of Philosophy, the tool that determines the difference between the subjective and the objective, is Logic. Logic was discovered by Aristotle in ancient greece in his attempts to discern truth from falsity. Before then, every argument was equally valid because there was then no way to objectively examine the arguments. Logic allows us to organize arguments into premises and the conclusion, which must follow NECESSARILY from the premises used. Each premise is also subject to analysis as an independent conclusion which itself must be justified by premises. This must be done until the arguer can deduce his final conclusion from necessarily true logical principles.

4a. When making empirical arguments, the examination of premises must be reducible to the laws of physics and verifiable experiments. In empirical argumentation, there must be assumptions made in order to use deductive logic (e.g., there exists an objective reality consisting of the external world in which we all exist;

Static said...

-_-

Wowee. Does this guy know how to party?!?!?! 8D

Who are you and what have you done with our Beau-zo??? I demand that you bring him back! IMMEDIATELY!

All kidding aside... I hear you. Or in this case I see you. *breaks into song* See me...feel me...touch me....heal me.

Furthermore I am familiar with those concepts. You were starting to sound like one of my philosophy professors (who oddly enough is Bozo the Clown) ...and well, I just wanted to get a rise out of you. Apparently you have quite the hard on now. :P

You obviously have more expertise in that area than I do. But I don't know how my "expertise" or lack thereof in basic first aid is any more relevant to the war argument -- which could be debated philosophically, but then we would forever be debating about it and we would do nothing else with our lives nor may we ever find a PRACTICAL resolution during all the sweaty pontificating wafting through the air. :P

This also raises a number of questions about what "truth" is. What truly is "correct" thinking. Who is capable of "correct" thinking, using deductive reasoning and/or logic...what are the real world applications and how is it useful or practical to the average Joe the Plumber...and why am I wearing these pants with this shirt and other deeper philosophical questions.

I completely agree with your opinions on debates and the unhealthiness of competition that overlaps into everything our culture engages in socially. People do not need to be/should not be in competition with one another simply for the sake of winning or losing. Once again our lizard brains have misdirected survivalism and the fight or flight response...truly primitive behaviors.

I did not intend to give the impression
that I dislike or do not value philosophy. In fact I prefer Eastern philosphies more than I do Western thought. But I would much rather discuss these things that are not directly related to the topic of this post away from a public forum lest we come across as raving fucking lunatics. You have my email addy don't you?

And another thing...Aaaaaaabooooggaaahhhh Booogggggaaahhhh Boooooooo!!!!!!!! (>.<)

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...